Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock,Mr. SPEAKERin the Chair

PRIVATE BUSINESS

PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS (No Standing Orders applicable),

Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill, referred on the First Reading thereof, no Standing Orders are applicable, namely:—

Kilmarnock Gas and Water Provisional Order Bill

Bill to be read a Second time Tomorrow

London, Midland, and Scottish Railway Bill[Lords],

To be read a Second time To-morrow

London, Midland, and Scottish Railway (New Capital) Bill[Lords](by Order),

Second Reading deferred till Friday, 22nd May

Land Drainage (Black Sluice) Provisional Order Bill,

Read the Third time, and passed

Ministry of Health Provisional Order Confirmation (Keighley Water Charges) Bill[Lords],

Ministry of Health Provisional Orders Confirmation (No. 1) Bill[Lords],

Read the Third time, and passed, without Amendment

CIVIL SERVICE

The following Notice of Motion stood on the Order Paper in the name ofMajor HORE-BELISHA:Return of a complete list of Civil Service appointments held direct from the Crown

Mr. SPEAKER: No notice has yet been received that the hon. Member's Return
is granted, and therefore it cannot be moved

Oral Answers to Questions — NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS

FINAL AWARDS

Colonel DAY: 1.
asked the Minister of Pensions whether, in view of the general position existing in regard to the system of making final awards to pensioners whose disabilities are assessed at less than 20 per cent., he will take steps to abolish this system at an early date?

The MINISTER of PENSIONS (Major Tryon): The hon. and gallant Member's suggestion would involve very far-reaching amendments both of Warrant and Statute, and I know of no grounds sufficient to justify its adoption

Colonel DAY: In view of the hardships which some of these pensioners suffer, will the right hon. Gentleman consider allowing them to have the right of appeal?

Major TRYON: The hon. and gallant Gentleman has not made his point very clear. The right of appeal was conferred by Parliament and it has been exercised in a very large number of cases, which shows that it is generally known

VOLUNTARY FUNDS (GRANTS)

Mr. PALING: 6.
asked the Minister of Pensions what is the nature of the qualifications necessary for an applicant to secure a grant from the Voluntary Funds under the control of the Ministry?

Major TRYON: Grants are made from the Voluntary Funds referred to at the discretion of the Minister after full consideration of all the circumstances of the case, and subject to the conditions under which the funds were created. It would not be parcticable to set out in detail the conditions applicable to the various types of case. But it may be said in general that in all cases disablement or death by war service is a condition precedent to the grant of assistance from these funds

COMMITTEES AND COUNCILS (EXPENSES)

Mr. WHITELEY: 7.
asked the Minister of Pensions whether, seeing that the Ministry of Pensions Circular No. 31 provides that, in cases where members of area war pensions committees and advisory councils claim for loss of time and subsistence, the maximum payment for a day shall be 10s. 6d. and, in the cases where the member is absent from home for a night, 20s., and that this results in members not receiving compensation for the full amount of wages lost, he will withdraw the circular and issue instructions that in future members of the war pensions committees and/or advisory councils shall receive full compensation for wages lost plus subsistence allowance where, owing to long absence from home, they may be entitled to the same?

Major TRYON: Composite maximum rates of payment, where both loss of time and subsistence allowance are claimed, are in my judgment reasonable, and experience has not shown any ground for a general increase of them.

Mr. WHITELEY: Does the right hon. Gentleman not realise that in the case of a workman who is compelled to lose a day's work to attend these committees and whose day's wage may amount to, say, 8s. this is a big reduction, and, including his expenses, it would come to about 12s. or 13s.?

Major TRYON: I understand that the maximum amount, including the subsistence allowance for a whole day and night, comes to £1, and I think that is not an unreasonable contribution from the State

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: If a night is spent away from home in the case of a man attending a committee does the right hon. Gentleman not think that an extra grant might be made?

Major TRYON: That is provided for, and under those circumstances the individual concerned can draw up to £1 for the whole period. I do not think that is an unreasonable contribution

CONSTANT ATTENDANCE ALLOWANCE

Mr. R. MORRISON: 9.
asked the Minister of Pensions for what reason Mr. Gilroy Dunstan, 134, Markfield Road, Tottenham, who lost both legs as a result
of war service and whose wife is an invalid, has had his constant attendance allowance entirely stopped

Major TRYON: Repeated endeavours have been made to induce the pensioner to enter an institution in order that he may receive the attention to his injured limb, which my medical advisers are satisfied is essential for his case, and without which his condition is liable to serious deterioration. Instructions have been given to continue the allowance pending a further effort in the same direction. If the hon. Member can render any assistance in the man's own interests, I hope that he will do so

Mr. MORRISON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the man's objection to going into an institution is because his constant attendance allowance was suddenly stopped and he got into debt because of that, and he was unaware of it. He also had a small debt amounting to £7 10s., and if the Ministry met that point the man would be perfectly willing to go into the hospital?

Major TRYON: In any case, the man's health is the first consideration, and if the hon. Gentleman would use his influence to get this man to undergo treatment in his own interest he will be doing the best service he can do for this man.

Mr. MORRISON: Pending the hon. Member doing his best, will the right hon. Gentleman see that this man is not punished by having his constant attendance allowance stopped?

Major TRYON: I understand that it is now being paid, but the main consideration is the man's health

COMMITTEES (AGENDA)

Mr. HAYES: 10.
asked the Minister of Pensions whether he will give instructions that in the preparation of the agenda for the meetings of the Central Advisory Committee or Area War Pensions Committees any matters submitted by Committee members shall be included?

Major TRYON: In the case of War Pensions Committees the matters to be discussed at their meetings are within the discretion of the Committee under their rules of procedure, and no instructions are, in my judgment, required. It is the function of the Central Advisory
Committee, under the terms of Section 3 of the War Pensions Act, 1921, to consider such matters as may be put before them by the Minister for their advice

IDENTIFICATION FORMS

Mr. HAYES: asked the Minister of Pensions why pensioners filling in the special identification form for persons in receipt of pension have to furnish particulars of members of their family who are not in receipt of pension; and whether he will have the form revised and questions as to Christian name of parents, wife's maiden name and date of birth, date of marriage and place, and similar questions deleted?

Major TRYON: I would refer the hon Member to the reply given to the similar question put by the hon. Member for Stratford on the 30th ultimo, of which I am sending him a copy.

DISABLEMENT (ASSESSMENT)

Mr. WRIGHT: asked the Minister of Pensions whether, seeing that under the Royal Warrant a man with a 20 per cent. degree of disablement may be given a life pension, he will give the reason for fixing 30 per cent, as the degree of disablement necessary to enable a man whose final award has expired and who is suffering from a recurrence of his war disability to be granted a reissue of pension under the Regulations governing erroneous awards?

Major TRYON: The hon. Member is under a misapprehension. No such percentage has been fixed.

TREATMENT ALLOWANCES

Mr. WADDINGTON: asked the Minister of Pensions if he is aware of the hardship and loss caused to ex-service men in consequence of allowances not being granted after reporting for treatment until the ex-service man is actually admitted into hospital; and will he consider payment being made from the date of report in all cases where hospital treatment is subsequently given?

Major TRYON: Whenever it is certified that, in the interests of treatment, a man should cease work pending admission, treatment allowances are paid in respect of the waiting period. I would remind the hon. Member that there is frequently
no necessity for a man who is recommended in-patient treatment to cease work before the day on which he enters hospital.

Mr. WADDINGTON: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware of the difficulty which arises in the case of ex-service men living in a district where the pensions officer only comes once a week, and if the ex-service man does not happen to be at home on that particular day he has to enter into correspondence, and the pensioner has to wait until his certificate is sent to him?

Major TRYON: I shall be very glad to consider the point raised by the hon. Gentleman.

KING'S OWN YORKSHIRE LIGHT INFANTRY (MR. R. PAYNE)

Mr. PETHIGICLAWRENCE: asked the Minister of Pensions whether he is aware that Mr. R. Payne, of Leicester, MP 2817, King's Own Yorkshire Light Infantry, has been on pension for debility since 1917; that application has been made for revision of pension owing to the fact that he is now suffering from tuberculosis, claimed by medical testimony to be a sequel of his War disability; and that he has been turned down owing to the seven years' limit; and whether he can see his way to have the case reviewed?

Major TRYON: I am enquiring into the facts of this case, and will communicate with the hon. Member.

APPEAL TRIBUNALS (Ex-SERVICE MEN)

Mr. T. THOMSON: 94.
asked the Treasurer of the Household if he is aware that many ex-service men and their dependants feel that they are unable to adequately express themselves when appearing before the appeals tribunals; and will he make inquiries and, if these fears are well founded, will he take steps to remove the same?

Colonel GIBBS(Treasurer of the Household): Inquiries have failed to bring to light any serious complaint of the liability of ex-service men and their dependants adequately to express themselves when appearing before the tribunals. The rules provide that the tribunals shall assist any applicant who, through ignorance or otherwise, is unable to make the best of his case The tri
bunals are further instructed to be careful to bring out every point in favour of an appellant which may have been overlooked by him or her, and the chairmen are instructed to grant adjournments if they think by so doing evidence may be obtained which will assist the appellant.

Mr. THOMSON: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that the result of his inquiries differs considerably from the findings of the Pension Committees, and will he have further inquiries made in view of what the Pension Committees themselves have reported on this particular question?

Colonel GIBBS: Certainly, I will.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: Is it not wrong to "adequately express "oneself with a split infinitive?

Mr. STEPHEN: Will further inquiries be made as to whether the medical members of these tribunals refuse to assist appellants in their case when a medical point occurs?

Colonel GIBBS: Iwill convey that to my right hon. Friend.

BEER AND SPIRIT LICENCES

Captain GUNSTON: 15.
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department the number of new full beer and spirit licences granted in 1924; and the total amount of the monopoly value assessed on these licences?

The SECREARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT(Sir William Joynson-Hicks): According to the figures in course of preparation for the forthcoming Volume of Licensing Statistics, there were granted and confirmed in England and Wales in 1924 66 full or publicans' licences (20 of which were re-grants of licences previosuly granted for a term of years), and a total sum of &£57,904 was fixed in respect of monopoly value

Oral Answers to Questions — MOTOR TRAFFIC

FATAL ACCIDENTS (INQUESTS).

Rear-Admiral BEAMISH: 17
asked the Home Secretary if he is aware that considerable dissatisfaction exists in con-
sequence of inquests on persons killed by motor vehicles being held without a jury; and can he see his way to introduce legislation compelling coroners to empanel a jury at every inquest into the death of a person as the result of a road accident?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The subject has engaged my attention, and provision will be included in the new Coroners Bill.

Lieut. Commander KENWORTHY: Will the right hon. Gentleman stiffen up these penalties to the people who drive to the public danger, and run over lieges?

Captain BRASS: rose—

Mr. SPEAKER: I am afraid that question does not arise at all.

POLICE CONTROLS

Captain BRASS: asked the Home Secretary what is the system of selection adopted by the Metropolitan police in choosing a particular road on which to set a police trap for motorists?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Roads are selected for control where the exigencies of the traffic seem to demand it.

Captain BRASS: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of publishing where the traps are set?

Mr. MARCH: Can the Home Secretary arrange for someone to walk in front with a red flag?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I would remind the hon. Member of the saying, "In vain is the net set in sight of any bird."

DANGEROUS DRIVING PROSECUTIONS

Captain BRASS: asked the Home Secretary what instructions are issued to the Metropolitan police with regard to prosecutions for dangerous driving under the Motor Car Act, 1903, so as to make sure that all relevant considerations, such as the braking efficiency of the car and the amount of traffic on the road at the time, are taken into account before prosecution?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I think the hon. and gallant Member is under a misapprehension. The duty of the constable is to report occurrences which appear to him to suggest that an offence has been committed, but no prosecution is ordered
without the authority of the Commissioner of Police, acting through one of the Assistant Commissioners or his immediate Deputy, and all relevant considerations are taken into account by him. While speed may be a factor it is only one of the considerations taken into account before instituting proceedings for dangerous driving.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the advisability in his replies of not giving any information that will lead to the evasion of the law and assist the law breakers?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I do not think my answer bears that interpretation.

Captain BRASS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in a large number of cases of traps in the Metropolitan police area that speed only is considered before a prosecution is undertaken?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The hon. and gallant Gentleman asked me that question a week ago. I have since caused a full investigation to be made in all the records of prosecutions for dangerous driving this year, and there is not one of them that comes within his definition of dangerous driving for speed only.

Mr. R. MORRISON: Does the right hon. Gentleman not think it would be far better if Members of Parliament found breaking the law were to take their punishment and pay up?

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSE PAINTING REGULATIONS

Lord HENRY CAVENDISHBENTINCK: 19
asked the Home Secretary if he has any information as to the number of master painters who have caused the waterproof sandpaper to be used in all house-painting work; and whether he is aware that of those who did so cause it to be used many have since gone back to the ordinary glasspaper as a more practical material for the work involved?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I have no information as to the first part of this question. As regards the second part, inquiries have been made of firms who deal in waterproof sandpaper, and it appears that there has been a very substantial increase recently in the sale of
this sandpaper. Part of this increase may be due to its use by other classes of painters, but one may reasonably infer that its use by house painters has increased rather than diminished.

Lord H. CAVENDISH-ENTINCK: 20
asked the Home Secretary whether he has received a copy of a resolution from the joint council of the painting trade, dated 23rd January, 1925, stating that, whereas they co-operated with the Home Office in drawing up a code of Regulations for the painting trade, it was on the assumption that these Regulations were in pursuance of the compromise arrived at in the Convention, and that they cannot support any Bill differing in essentials or providing a less degree of protection for the worker than that provided by the Convention; and whether he is prepared to reconsider his decision to exclude the Clause prohibiting the use of lead for interior house painting?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The answer to the first part of this question is in the affirmative. The answer to the latter part is in the negative.

Oral Answers to Questions — POLICE STRIKERS, LIVERPOOL

Mr. HAYES: 24
asked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been drawn to the resolution of the Liverpool City Council asking that the question of cash payment, on the lines recommended by the Mackenzie Committee, be referred back to that Committee for reconsideration on more generous lines; and what steps he proposes to take in regard thereto?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I have received the resolution to which the hon. Member refers, but I find no sufficient reason for adopting the suggestion made.

Mr. HAYES: Does the right hon. Baronet propose to receive representations from the city council and from the men concerned on this matter?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Not from the men concerned, certainly, out if the Corporation of the City of Liverpool desire to see the Home Secretary, of course he will be glad to receive them.

Mr. HAYES: In view of the fact that the burden, up to the point of payment, has to be borne as to 50 per cent. by the
local authority and as to 50 per cent. by the Exchequer, ought not such recommendations to have consideration by the Mackenzie Committee?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I think not. I am the responsible person who has to decide. I consider the Report of the Mackenzie Committee, I consider the resolutions, and I arrive at my decision.

Oral Answers to Questions — G. PAYMENT (GRIEVANCESINVESTIGATED)

Mr. R. MORRISON: 25.
asked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been drawn to the case of G. Rayment, 81, Gladstone Avenue, Wood Green, who for the past year has been daily parading in Whitehall with a board containing allegations against the Home Secretary and the Commissioner of Police; whether Rayment's alleged grievances have been investigated; and, if so, with what result?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Yes, Rayment's grievances have been investigated, and appear to be based wholly on misapprehension. This was explained to him in 1923.

Oral Answers to Questions — SIR BASIL THOMSON (ARTICLE)

Mr. NEIL MACLEAN: 27 and 28
asked the Home Secretary (1) whether, seeing that one of the conditions laid down in the appointment of Sir Basil Thomson to a position at Scotland Yard was that he should not use for his private gain, nor make public use of, any information he obtained in his official position, he will state whether this condition has been fulfilled since his retiral from office:
(2) whether, with regard to the article on Sir Roger Casement by Sir Basil Thomson, which appeared in the Press. he has any evidence that the statements contained therein were taken from official documents of a secret nature, or based upon secret information only obtainable while the writer held an official position at Scotland Yard; and, if so, what action if any, he contemplates to prevent a recurrence of any abuse of such knowledge?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: So far as I am aware, no special conditions were attached to the appointment in this respect. The general rules that apply are embodied in the Official Secrets Acts and in the Statutes governing police pensions. As I have already indicated, I should not hesitate to act if I had evidence upon which action could properly be based

Mr. MACLEAN: Is it not the case that in this article statements appeared which can only have been got from documents that are in the possession of the Criminal Investigation Department?

Captain ARTHUR EVANS: Is it not the fact that politicians make use of information acquired while they are Ministers of State, and is it not fair that these officers, who have served their country faithfully and well, should be able to avail themselves similarly?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I do not want to be drawn into the first part of my hon. and gallant Friend's supplementary question, but, with regard to the second part, the law distinctly is that civil servants must not use secret documents. That is quite clear. Perhaps I might say that I have written to the author of this particular article personally, pointing out to him that, though he may not have infringed the law, it is undesirable that this kind of thing should be done

Mr. MACLEAN: While I accept the statement of the Home Secretary, and thank him for his reply, I should like to have a reply to my supplementary question, namely, is it not the case that in this article certain information appeared that could only come from one who had access to C.I.D. documents?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: It is very difficult indeed to say whether it comes from actual present access to documents

Mr. MACLEAN: Is it not the case that, if he had information covered by the Official Secrets Act, and if he used it, it would contravene that Act, and the Home Secretary ought to take action?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The Home Secretary has to be convinced, or, at least, it is very desirable that he should be convinced, that any prosecution of this kind would result in a conviction, and I
think it is not quite certain whether in this case matters have gone far enough for that.

Mr. MACLEAN: Have you seen the article?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Yes

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION.

SCHOOL ATTENDANCES (MEDICAL TREATMENT).

Mr. GROVES: asked the President of the Board of Education if, when children are absent from school owing to their attendance at school clinics, hospitals, sanatoria, or any other medical treatment ordered by the school medical officer, such occasions rank with those specified in paragraph 23(c)of Schedule 4 of the Code; and are they counted as attendances under Article 44(h)of the Code?

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION(Lord Eustace Percy): The answer to both parts of the question is in the affirmative in so far as the attendances are made, or the medical treatment is given, in accordance with arrangements approved under Section 80 (1) of the Education Act, 1921.

PHYSICALLY AND MENTALLY DEFECTIVE CHILDREN.

Mr. GROVES: 30.
asked the President of the Board of Education the number of blind and crippled children, respectively, throughout the country for whom no educational provision is made; and what action he proposes to take with local educational authorities who refuse to meet their obligations in this matter?

Lord E. PERCY: As the answer to this question is rather long, perhaps the hon. Member will allow me to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. GROVES: May I ask whether, if the Noble Lord proposes any additional arrangements with regard to blind children at present in schools, he would be good enough to see that there are not more than 15 in a class, or, if he does not contemplate any fresh arrangements in that direction, will he be good enough to receive a deputation of teachers interested in the instruction of blind children?

Lord E. PERCY: I have already asked local authorities to give special attention to these matters, and I am sure that they are doing so.
Following is the answer:
According to the returns of local authorities in England and Wales for the year ended 31st December last-, there were 567 blind children (including 287 partially blind), and 4,301 crippled children (other than those suffering from active non-pulmonary tuberculosis), attending no recognised school or institution during the year. I may, perhaps, mention that large numbers of the crippled children not at present in special schools do not need to attend such schools, but rather require orthopædic treatment which will enable them to continue in attendance at ordinary public elementary schools, and I am taking all practicable steps to encourage the development of such treatment. As regards special school accommodation for blind and crippled children who need it, I have already asked all authorities to give their careful attention to the problem and to inform me what progress they are making.

Sir HENRY CRAIK: 34.
asked the President of the Board of Education what number of local education authorities have opened schools for physically defective children, either day schools or residential, and the number of each; what number of local education authorities are making adequate provision for physically defective children in their area to receive suitable education in accordance with Section 56 of the Education Act, 1921; and what number of local education authorities are setting on foot inquiries called for in the Board's Circular 1,349 of the 12th January, 1925?

Lord E. PERCY: Forty-eight local education authorities have provided schools for physically defective children. One hundred and thirteen of these schools are day schools and 37 are residential schools. There are also one day school and 71 residential schools for children of this type provided by voluntary bodies. As regards the second part of the question, the actual number of such authorities would be a matter of opinion. With regard to the last part, the material for a, specific answer is not at the moment available, but I can assure my hon.
Friend that the matter is receiving the close and active attention of my Department.

Mr. GROVES: 31.
asked the President of the Board of Education the number of local education authorities who have not established clinics for the treatment of physically defective children; and what action he proposes to take if those authorities continue to refuse to make adequate arrangements?

Lord E. PERCY: Out of 318 local education authorities, only seven have not yet provided any school clinics, and, of these seven, five have submitted proposals which are now before my Department. One of the remaining two cases is that of a small area where no clinic is required, and in the other case the authority have been requested to give the matter their urgent attention. I do not, of course, desire to suggest that in all cases the arrangements made in this respect are entirely adequate.

Mr. PALING: 36.
asked the President of the Board of Education what provision is made by the West Riding (Yorks) County Council Education Authority for the training of mentally defective children of school age; and whether such provision is sufficient to meet the needs of the area?

Lord E. PERCY: According to returns furnished by the West Riding Local Education Authority for the year 1924, there were in the area 528 children ascertained to be mentally defective within the meaning of the Education Act, 1921. The local authority have no school of their own for mentally defective children, but they have sent 23 children to special schools certified by the Board.

Mr. PALING: Are the local authority taking any steps to provide schools in the West Riding for these children?

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Are we to take it from the answer that in Yorkshire there are 470 or more defective children for whom no provision has been made?

Lord E. PERCY: The number is 528. As the hon. Member knows, the West Riding has a very large educational programme, which it has outlined in the rough. I cannot say without notice how
far that programme provides for special school accommodation.

EDUCATION AND INDUSTRY.

Mr. RHYS: 35.
asked the President of the Board of Education whether any steps have been taken to call a joint conference between the Board of Education, employers and trade unions to discuss the arrangements of industry for receiving juveniles and educational arrangements for keeping them at school?

Major OWEN: 42.
asked the President of the Board of Education whether he has any further statement to make to the House as to the projected conference with representatives of the Ministry of Labour on the subject of juvenile unemployment?

Mr. T. THOMSON: 44.
asked the right hon. Gentleman whether he had any further statement to make to the House as to the projected conference with representatives of the Ministry of Labour on the subject of juvenile unemployment?

Lord E. PERCY: My right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour and I hope to appoint a Committee very shortly to inquire into certain aspects of the relation between education and industry, but I am not yet in a position to define the scope of the inquiry.

SCHOOL-LEAVING PERIOD

Mr. A. R. KENNEDY: 37.
asked the President of the Board of Education whether he will consider the desirability of taking steps to relax the policy of not permitting children, although they have reached the age of 14 years, to leave school until the end of a school term in those cases in which apprenticeship vacancies or other good opportunities of employment, which may not readily recur, have been found for them?

Lord E. PERCY: This matter is not one of administrative policy, but of statutory requirement. The relevant provisions of the Act of 1921 are Section 138 (1) and Sections 42-45.

Mr. WADDINGTON: Is the Noble Lord aware that the difficulty which exists in industrial areas is that of boys or girls getting employment when they all leave at one definite period, as against the old system of leaving at the age of 14?

Mr. SANDEMAN ALLEN: Is the Noble Lord aware that these 'children spend the intervening period in running errands for teachers, cleaning slates and inkpots, and so on?

Lord E. PERCY: With regard to the first supplementary question, I am aware that in many areas difficulty arises from that cause. The matter has been discussed by the Association of Education Authorities, and perhaps my hon. Friend would look at the Report of that discussion. As to the second supplementary question, I am not aware of the facts stated, but if my hon. Friend can give me information as to schools where that is the case, I shall be glad to go into the matter.

TEACHERS (SUPERANNUATION).

Major HORE-BELISHA: 38.
asked the President of the Board of Education, with reference to the position of the superannuated teachers who retired before 1919 and whose average pension is £37 per annum, whether there is any other reason for refusing to improve their position, except the ground of economy?

Lord E. PERCY: These teachers have received the same treatment as other classes of pensioners under the Pensions (Increase) Acts, and it would pot, in my view, be just to give them differential treatment now.

Mr. T. THOMSON: asked the President of the Board of Education whether the service of qualified teachers in appointments overseas, obtained under the auspices of the Colonial Office, is admissible for pension purposes?

Lord E. PERCY: Service as a teacher in any school or other educational institutioninany British Colony or Dependency or in India, which is maintained, aided, or under regular inspection by the Government, is regarded as qualifying service for the purposes of the Act of 1918. Perhaps I might also refer the hon. Member to Clause 20 (1) (c) of the Teachers (Superannuation) Bill now before the House. The Board also have arrangements for exchanges of teachers for one year, during which time service overseas is treated as recognised service.

Mr. JAMES BROWN: asked the President of the Board of Education how many teachers have exercised their option of retiring after completing 30 years'
service before attaining the age of 60, and have thereafter on attaining the age of 60 received a pension and retiring allowance?

Lord E. PERCY: The number of teachers who, having retired from service before reaching the age of 60, received superannuation allowances on the ground of age under the School Teachers (Superannuation) Act, 1918, after attaining the age of 60, is about 1,360, of whom, approximately, 850 had completed 30 years' service. The remainder were eligible for benefits under Section 1 (1) (a) (ii) of the Act on less than 30 years' service.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: asked the President of the Board of Education whether he is prepared to consider favourably the Amendment put forward by the four associations of teachers in secondary schools in the Teachers Superannuation Bill?

Lord E. PERCY: I am not clear which particular Amendment my hon. Friend has in mind, but all the Amendments put forward by the four associations are receiving my careful consideration.

SCHOOL EXCURSIONS.

Mr. HARRIS: 39.
asked the President of the Board of Education to what extent expenditure by local education authorities upon organised school excursions is admissible for grant?

Lord E. PERCY: In the case of public elementary schools, such arrangements may be approved under the Code if the. excursions take place during school hours, or under Section 86 of the Education Act, 1921, if the excursions take place outside school hours. In either case expenditure, by local authorities is eligible for grant, under Article 2 of the Substantive Grant Regulations, a copy of which I am sending the hon. Member. In the sphere of higher education, expenditure by local authorities for this purpose is eligible for grant under Grant Regulations No. 4, a copy of which I am sending the hon. Member also.

SWIMMING AND OUT-DOOR GAMES.

Mr. HARRIS: asked the President of the Board of Education whether he has any information as to the extent to which swimming and organised out-door games are included in the curricula of elementary schools: and how the position to-day compares with the position 10 years ago?

Lord E. PERCY: No statistics upon this subject have been specially collected by my Department, but swimming and out-door games form an important part of the school activities in many areas, and provision for them is increasingly recognised by local authorities as desirable.

Mr. HARRIS: Owing to the increasing importance attached to this side of the school syllabus, will the Noble Lord endeavour to collect that information, which would be a very valuable guide to educational authorities?

Lord E. PERCY: I am constantly sending to local authorities circulars requesting statistics, and I would beg the hon. Member not to increase the number.

Sir H BRITTAIN: Will the Noble Lord send still one more, urging that every child that is passed as medically fit should have the opportunity of learning this most useful and healthy art?

Lord E. PERCY: No, Sir, I do not think that that would be desirable, because already there are complaints from all parts of the country that the Board's requirements involve a great deal too much interference with the curricula of the schools, and I do not think it would be desirable to add other requirements.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: May I say that my idea was not that it should be put in the form of a requirement, but of a suggestion?

Lord E. PERCY: I do not think that really any suggestion of that kind is needed; the local authorities are doing it.

PLAYING FIELDS.

Mr. HARRIS: 41.
asked the President of the Board of Eduation whether the necessity of the provision of better playing fields than are at present available for children attending elementary schools in urban areas is receiving the attention of the Board; and, if so, whether the Board is taking any steps to urge the necessity of developing playgrounds and playing fields, wherever possible, upon the attention of local authorities?

Lord E. PERCY: I am quite prepared, as I think local authorities are aware, to
consider sympathetically proposals for the purpose suggested by the hon. Member, and I have no doubt that the matter will be kept in view by authorities in the preparation of the programmes of development which I have asked them to submit to me.

NAVAL SHIPBUILDING PRO GRAMME

Major HORE-BELISHA: 45.
asked the Prime Minister whether he can now state the decision of the Cabinet upon the naval shipbuilding programme; whether he is aware that, unless the plans of construction deemed by him to be necessary in his speech at Plymouth in October, 1923, are undertaken, there will be unemployment in the near future in His Majesty's dockyards and other shipbuilding centres: and whether, in these circumstances, he will expedite the undertaking of the programme foreshadowed by him on the date mentioned above?

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Baldwin): I cannot, add anything to the answer which I gave on the 28th April, in reply to a question by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Maidstone (Commander Bellairs).

Major AORE-BELISHA: Will the right lion. Gentleman expedite the decision?

The PRIME MINISTER: I gave an undertaking that the results of the deliberations of the Committee should be made public this Session. While I am always delighted to answer my hon. and gallant Friend's questions, I am afraid that their repetition will neither expedite nor impede the consideration of the matter.

Captain WEDGWOOD BENN: Did not the right hon. Gentleman's party last year urge in Debate that new construction was very urgently needed eight or 10 cruisers?

The PRIME MINISTER: That is quite true, but no one will recognise more than the hon. and gallant Gentleman that circumstances as to the rapidity with which construction should proceed change from year to year.

Commander BELLAIRS: As the naval programme may involve a very large sum
of money, may we have the results of the deliberations of the Cabinet before the Second Reading of the Finance Bill?

The PRIME MINISTER: I do not think that that is necessary. As my hon. and gallant Friend will remember, undertook that the results of the Committee's deliberations should be announced in sufficient time to enable any necessary Estimate to be taken before the House rises.

SAFEGUARDING OF INDUSTRIES (LACE).

Captain BENN: 46.
asked the Prime Minister whether the Government has yet come to any decision as to the Lace Report; and whether his statement that the only avenue open to industries seeking the protection of a duty is the Safeguarding of Industries Act will preclude the imposition of a duty for the protection of any industry which does not conform to the terms of the White Paper?

The PRIME MINISTER: I regret I am not yet in a position to announce a definite decision; but I will certainly see that a decision is announced at such a time as not to preclude the insertion of the necessary Clause or Clauses in this year's Finance Bill in the event of the recommendation of the Committee being accepted. I may add that I should not regard the imposition of a duty in this case as being in conflict with any undertaking given by His Majesty's Government.

Captain BENN: Arising out of the latter part of the reply, what does the right hon. Gentleman mean by saying that there is only one avenue, and yet showing many other avenues which can be entered?

The PRIME MINISTER: I should have said that, if a decision was taken to give effect to the Report of this Committee, that, surely, would be the avenue.

Captain BENN: Does the right hon. Gentleman mean that the conditions laid down in the White Paper are the conditions to which an industry must conform if it is to have the duty?

The PRIME MINISTER: I think that that is a matter whicih would be well
worthy of debate, if a Debate ensued, on our making the recommendations.

DISARMAMENT

Mr. THURTLE: asked the Prime Minister if he will take the initiative in calling a World Conference on the question of general disarmament?

The PRIME MINISTER: The reduction of armaments, as the hon. Member is aware, is still under the consideration of the League of Nations, and I do not think that any initiative at present on the part of His Majesty's Government would be advantageous.

UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFIT.

Captain BENN: asked the Prime Minister the nature of the proposed inquiry into the abuse of unemployment; the personnel of the inquiring body; and the terms of reference to it?

Sir CLEMENT KINLOCH-COOKE: 97.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he is now in a position to give the Government's view with regard to instituting an inquiry into the administration and distribution of unemployment benefit; and, if so, will he inform the House what form the inquiry will take?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Mr. Betterton): I have been asked to reply. My right hon. Friend hopes to have an opportunity of dealing with the questions in the course of the Debate this evening.

Captain BENN: The Chancellor of the Exchequer referred definitely to inquiries as to whether such abuses were going on. My inquiry is, what is the nature of those inquiries? Surely that can be answered?

Mr. SPEAKER: The proper time will be during the Debate.

FOOD PRICES (ROYAL COMMISSION).

Mr. JOHNSTON: asked the Prime Minister whether he will arrange for the issue free, or at a cheap rate, to the Members of the House of Commons of the minutes of evidence and appendices of evidence given before the Royal Commission on Food Prices?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY(Mr. Guinness): The general position with regard to the supply of non-Parliamentary publications to Members was set out in the reply given by my predecessor to Mr. Sturrock on the 1st April, 1924. Members who desire copies of the volumes containing the minutes of evidence and appendices will be supplied with copies if they apply as suggested in that reply to the Controller of the Stationery Office.

Mr. MARDY JONES: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the inconvenience to Members in not being able to get copies of various Papers at the Vote Office and having to apply for same in writing to the Comptroller-General?

Mr. GUINNESS: The matter was gone into very carefully last year by my predecessor and arrangements are now in force under which all publications which are likely to be in demand by Members of Parliament are included in the Parliamentary Pink List, and it is obviously desirable, in the interests of economy, not to encourage the circulation of exceptional publications.

Mr. JONES: Is it not a, fact that the list issued in the Pink Paper is a, very short one, and does not include many important papers which are necessary to our duties here as Members of Parliament?

Mr. GUINNESS: As I stated in my answer, any Stationery Office Paper which is reasonably necessary to any individual Member for the carrying out of his Parliamentary duties will be supplied.

Mr. LEES-SMITH: Is it possible for Members to see a list of these Stationery Office Papers?

Mr. GUINNESS: I think it is kept in the Library.

METROPOLITAN ASYLUMS BOARD (BUTTER).

Colonel DAY: 53.
asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that the Metropolitan Asylums Board have recently decided to discontinue the supply of butter to inmates during the summer months on the ground that, whilst butter contains the vitamines necessary for bodily health, this form of food is to be omitted during the summer
months as sunshine supplies the vita-mines required; and will he recommend that the allowance of butter he continued irrespective of season?

The MINISTER of HEALTH(Mr. Nerille Chamberlain): I am advised that the use of margarine is quite compatible with a good diet, provided that the other constituents of the diet are satisfactory; and that the dietary adopted by the Metropolitan Asylums Board satisfies this condition, and further makes adequate provision for adjusting the diet to suit the needs of any particular case. In these circumstances I could not properly intervene in the manner suggested.

Colonel DAY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that medical officers of health throughout the country state that the children who are now leaving school are suffering from a low standard of health through being fed on margarine during the War.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am aware that there is difference of opinion between doctors on many subjects.

Mr. LANSBURY: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that, in Poor Law schools medical officers have reported that children did suffer through having to eat margarine and that in most, if not all of them butter has been substituted, and will he tell us whether any of our children or grandchildren have margarine in the summer and butter at other times?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I have no information as to the diet of our grandchildren.

Mr. LANSBURY: That is not what I asked. Does the right hon. Gentleman's wife change from butter to margarine in the summer time?

Mr. SPEAKER: Domestic diet questions cannot now he argued.

Mr. LANSBURY: I will ask you, Sir, to allow me to put this question, because it is important. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Metropolitan Asylums Board are dealing with children who are ailing children and only go to them because they are ailing, and would any hon. Member, when his children were sick, give them less value in food than when they are well?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am afraid the hon. Member did not attend to the answer I gave, in which I said the Metropolitan Asylums Board makes adequate provision for adjusting the diet to suit the needs of the children.

Mr. LANSBURY: But they do not do anything of the kind.

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member keeps putting things in the form of assertions, which is not proper at Question Time.

Mr. LANSBURY: May I put this as a question? is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Metropolitan Asylums Board has passed a resolution that, as it is Summer Time and the sun is shining, these children shall not have butter, and do well-to-do people trust the sun to cure their children instead of giving them decent food?

Mr. SPEAKER: That is exactly what was asked by the hen. Member who put the original question.

CASUAL WARDS (OAKUM PICKING).

Captain BOURNE: asked the Minister of health whether he is aware that a Departmental Committee on Prisons in 181)5 reported that oakum picking should be abolished except for penal offences; whether he will appoint another Departmental Committee to inquire and report whether oakum picking should be abolished for both men and women in casual wards; and will he arrange for placing on the committee representatives of the Ministry of Health, of the Home Office, and of the Prison Commissioners?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am aware of the Report of the Departmental Cornmittee on Prisons. I do not think that the appointment of a committee on this subject is necessary, but I am considering how far it is necessary or desirable to retain this particular task.

Captain BOURNE: asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that the task of oakum picking prescribed by the new Casual Poor (Relief) Order for a female destitute wayfarer, who remains for one night only, is to be not less than one-third of two pounds of unbeaten oakum or of four pounds of beaten oakum, while under the Order of 1882 it was half
a pound of unbeaten or one pound of beaten oakum; and why the alloted task has been altered?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The alteration in the Order to which my hon. Friend alludes is made merely to bring the task for one night into the same relation to that prescribed for two nights, as is laid down in the Order of 1882, for the time to be occupied in the task, viz., three hours and nine hours respectively.

Captain BENN: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the desirability of exhibiting in the precincts a quantity of oakum which a casual female pauper is asked to pick?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I do not see that any advantage would be served by that. The hon. and gallant Gentleman can always make experiments.

Captain BENN: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise, putting aside the humorous aspect of the subject, that there is a great deal of interest in this reactionary circular, and would it not be desirable to make the exhibit for which I have asked?

Mr. SPEAKER: That question has been answered.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in the Navy oakum picking is given as a punishment, and the maximum allowed to be given to an able seaman as a punishment is 1 lb.?

Mr. MAXTON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Prison Commissioners are steadily trying to get the punishment of oakum picking removed from prison, and to substitute something more sensible and humane?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No, the ground on which the Committee to which the hon. Member refers recommended the abolition of oakum picking in prisons was not that it was not humane, but that it was unproductive. I am, however, taking into consideration the point raised by the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Ken-worthy) that oakum picking has been used as a punishment in certain cases, and it is in relation to that fact that I am considering whether it is necessary or desirable to continue the task in casual wards.

Mr. LANSBURY: When he is considering oakum, will the right hon. Gentleman also consider stone-pounding and stone-breaking operations?

Sir H. BRITTAIN: Was this oakum picking carried out under the recent Liberal and Labour Governments?

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING.

WEDNESBURY (CLOSING ORDER).

Mr. SHORT: 56.
asked the Minister of Health whether he is ware that the Wednesbury Corporation recently enforced a Closing Order respecting occupied houses situated at Hitchen's Croft; whether he can state the date when the property was originally condemned as unfit for habitation; whether the corporation offered the tenants at any time alternative accommodation, such as the rental of any of the new municipal houses being erected during this period; whether he can state the number of families, with the ages and the sex of the persons, ejected, their present place of abode, and the nature of the conveniences provided; and whether the corporation is taking any action to provide them with suitable accommodation?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am aware that the Wednesbury Corporation have recently taken proceedings for the enforcement of Closing Orders made in respect of four houses at Hitchen's Croft. The Closing Orders were made on 1st December, 1919. I understand that on the day when the corporation obtained possession of the houses one of the tenants, his wife and seven children were given possession of one of the new houses belonging to the corporation and that the corporation intend to provide similar accommodation for the remaining tenants as and when such houses a-re available. Four families, comprising a total of 33 persons, were ejected from the condemned houses. I have no information as to the ages and sex of these persons. I am informed that three of the families are at present residing in the adult school, Lower High Street, but I have no information as to the nature of the convenience provided.

Mr. SHORT: Do I understand the right hon. Gentleman to say the corporation intends to provide them with alternative accommodation?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Yes.

DEMONSTRATION HOUSES.

Mr. PALING: asked the Minister of Health how many authorities have had a money allocation for the building of demonstration houses; how many have started to build same; and how many houses are nearing completion or have been completed?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Of the £50,000 voted for the purpose of special grants for demonstration houses, £34,000 has been allocated, covering houses to be erected by 56 local authorities. According to the latest information the work of construction has been started in the case of 10 local authorities; four of the houses have actually been completed.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: How many different types of houses have been erected under the scheme?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I believe the four houses which have actually been completed are all of one type.

SCUNTHORPE (EJECTMENT).

Mr. MAXTON: asked the Minister of Health if he has been informed of the ejectment of a family from a house in Scunthorpe, Lincolnshire, and that this family, consisting of father, mother, and nine children, had to be accommodated in a hut, six feet by six feet, on the council allotments, no other accommodation being available; and if he will consider using his special powers to supersede the local authority in the erection of houses for the working classes?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I have no information as to the particular ease to which the hon. Member refers. I have no power to supersede a local authority in the erection of houses except where I am satisfied that they have failed to fulfil their obligations under the Housing Acts. The local authority in this case have already erected a substantial number of houses, and further schemes are in progress both by private enterprise under the Act of 1923 and by the local authority under the Act of 1924.

Mr. MAXTON: Is not the fact that a hut on an allotment was the only available accommodation for a family of 11 fair evidence that there is no accommodation available for the working classes?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I have told the hon. Member I have no information on the particular case.

Major HOREBELISHA: In how many cases has the right hon. Gentleman taken this matter case of the hands of local authoritieson the grounds he mentioned?

Captain MacMILLAN: Is not this a case of the want of steel houses?

NATIONAL LIGHT CASTINGS ASSOCIATION

Mr. R. MORRISON: 65
asked the Minister of Health whether he has received the Report of the Committee on Prices of Building Materials with reference to their investigations into the recent increase in prices by the National Light Castings Association; and what action he proposes to take?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The Committee on Prices of Building Materials is engaged upon the matter to which the hon. Member refers, but they have not yet completed their investigations and have, therefore, not yet reported.

Mr. MORRISON: Does the right hon. Gentleman recollect that when he promised an inquiry into these increased prices, it was not expected that the matter would be allowed to drift on for months, as it has done; and is it not very unsatisfactory even now that no decision has been arrived at?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The hon. Member is well aware that there was delay in consequence of the fact that the gentleman who I hoped would be able to undertake the Chairmanship was not able to undertake that office. The Committee are engaged on this case now.

ISLINGTON (SLUM CLEARANCES).

Mr. MONTAGUE: 69
asked the Minister of Health whether any decision is to be expected in the near future in reference to the proposed clearance of the George Road and Brand Street slum areas, Islington?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Yes, Sir. I hope to be able to give a decision on this scheme at an early date.

Oral Answers to Questions — MANIPULATIVE SURGERY

Mr. BASIL PETO: 62
asked the Minister of Health whether his attention
has been called to the action of the General Medical Council under the powers conferred on them by Section 29 of the Medical Act, 1858, in causing to be struck off the register the name of a doctor on the ground that he was guilty of infamous conduct in administering anæsthetics to a patient of a manipulative surgeon not possessing a degree qualifying him to practice in medicine or surgery; and whether he will consider the need of amending the Medical Act in order to give the same right of appeal against decisions under Section 29 of the Medical Act to the Privy Council which is given in the Act under Sections 23 and 24?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the second part, no right of appeal by individuals to the Privy Council is given by the Sections of the Medical Act, 1838, mentioned by my hon. Friend.

Mr. PETO: 63.
asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that the subject of manipulative surgery, with one or two exceptions, is not taught in our medical schools; whether he will take steps to point out the advisability of rectifying this omission to the General Medical Council and other responsible bodies; and whether, in the event of a refusal by those bodies to recognise the value of these therapeutic measures, he will take such action as he may deem necessary to insist upon this subject being given adequate prominence in the medical curriculum?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The revised medical curriculum adopted by the General Medical Council in 1922, which came into operation on 1st January, 1923, includes practical instruction in surgical methods (such as massage and manipulative surgery), orthopæcs and electro- and mechano-therapeutics. The second and third parts of the question do not, therefore, appear to arise.

Mr. PETO: Have not those who are skilled in manipulative survery to be qualified surgeons under the Medical Act before they are allowed to give the instruction to which my right hon. Friend refers?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Perhaps my hon. Friend will give me notice.

Dr. WATTS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that manipulative surgery is pure humbug.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE.

EXEMPTIONS.

Mr. CLARRY: 57.
asked the Minister of Health if he will consider granting exemption from the payment of State Health Insurance to those workers who are already covered by payment to superannuation and provident funds ac a condition of their employment?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: This is a matter within the terms of reference of the Royal Commission on National Health Insurance, and I am referring it to the Commission for their consideration.

X-RAY EXAMINATION.

Mr. B. PETO: 61.
asked the Minister of Health whether his attention has been called to the fact that the assistance of X-ray examination is not one of the benefits provided under the National Health Insurance Act; and, seeing that this is now essential to correct a diagnosis in many cases, and in view of the fact that the development of radiography is approximately coeval with the Act, he will amend the Act to give the advantages to insured persons?

Mr. SMITHERS: 64.
asked the Minister of Health why, among the benefits provided under the National Health Insurance Act, no provision is made for X-ray examination; and whether he will take steps to see that. this omission is remedied?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Payment for an X-ray examination can at present be made under the National Health Insurance Act only where the examination is incidental to a service, such as dental or hospital treatment, made available to members under an Approved Society's Scheme of Additional Benefits. The question of any extension or development of the benefit,: of the Act. is now under consideration by the Royal Commission on National Health Insurance, to whom am forwarding my hon. Friend's suggestion.

APPROVED SOCIETIES (VALUATION).

Mr. KELLY: 73.
asked the Minister of Health if he is aware of the inequalities
which will arise on 6th July, 1925, as a result of the division of the valuation of approved societies under the National Health Insurance Acts into two sections, whereby that section whose valuation took place in 1922 will be in a position to distribute additional benefits, if any are due. to their members a year in advance of the societies valued in 1923; and can the question be considered of postponing the coming into operation of the additional benefits declared in respect of societies valued in 1922, so that all additional benefits of all societies will come into operation on the same date, and thus removing inequalities?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Such inequalities as are suggested in the question are merely temporary and the present arrangement has been agreed to by the Consultative Council, which is representative of approved societies, as being the best method of procedure and for the valuation of some 9,000 societies and branches. As regards the second part of the question, the work in connection with valuation and the preparation of schemes by approved societies necessitates an interval of 2i years elapsing between the date of valuation and the date on which members begin to enjoy the additional benefits provided as the result of the valuation, and I do not think it desirable that this interval should be prolonged by another year.

BASTARDY BILL

Mr. HURD: 66.
asked the Minister of Health if he had had representations from the guardians of the Hungerford and Ramsbury and other unions urging that legislation be passed to empower hoards of guardians to take legal proceedings, prior to the birth of a child, against the putative father of illegitimate children for payment of the cost of the maintenance of the woman during such time as she shall be in the Poor Law institution before the birth of her child and for the expenses of her confinement; and whether he will see if facilities can be. given for the Second Reading of the Bastardy Bill now before this House so that the matter may be fully discussed?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The Minister of Health has asked me to answer this question, but I am afraid I
am not in a position to hold out any hope of special facilities being given for progress with this Bill.

Mr. HURD: Will the right. hon. Gentieman say whether he has received representations, as stated in the first part of the question?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I am afraid I have not. They may have gone to the Ministry of Health.

EX-SERVICE MEN (MALE SERVANT LICENCE DUTY).

Major COHEN: 67.
asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that the Huddersfield Corporation, being the authority dealing with local taxation licences under the Revenue Acts, has decided that a disabled pensioner, employed as a part-time gardener, working only five hours per day and not residing in the employer's house, is a manservant within the meaning of the Act, on the ground that a man who serves five hours daily performs a fair day's work within the meaning of the Regulations, and his employer is therefore liable to licence duty in respect of such employment; and whether he will consider the desirability of taking steps to exclude ex-service men employed for not more than five hours a day from the category of male servants the employment of whom renders the employer liable to payment of the duty?

Mr. GUINNESS: The power to levy the Male Servant Licence Duty in England and Wales is vested in the county and county borough councils, who arc not subject in the exercise of this power to the authority, direction or control of the Treasury, and I have therefore no cognisance of the decision in question. The suggestion in the second part of the question has been noted.

CONTRIBUTORY PENSIONS BILL.

Major G. DAVIES: 70.
asked the Minister of Health whether, under the new Pensions Bill, in the case of a sailor in the Loyal Navy who died previous to the passing of the said Bill from causes not attributable to his service and leaving a widow with young children not entitled to a Navy pension, the said widow
will be entitled to a widow's pension until the youngest child has reached the age of 14 years; and, if so, from what date?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Under the provisions of the Bill the widow of such a sailor will be entitled to a widow's pension and children's allowances as from the 4th January, 1926.

Major DAVIES: 71.
asked the Minister of Health whether, under the new Pensions Bill, a man over the age of 70 who has hitherto not been entitled to an old age pension on account of not having lived the required number of years in the United Kingdom, will be entitled to an old age pension; and, if so, from what date?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Under the provisions of the Bill a man who is now over the ago of 70 will become entitled on 2nd July, 1926, to an old age pension, provided he was an insured person within the meaning of the Bill on the date when he attained 70 and has resided in Great Britain for at least two years immediately prior to 2nd July, 1926.

BUTCHERS' SHOPS (REGISTRATION).

Mr. STAMFORD: asked the Minister of Health whether it is proposed to introduce legislation providing for the registration of retail butcher shops, as recommended in the first Report of the Royal Commission on Food Prices; and, if so, will he provide that the cost of administration and inspection shall be borne by the national Exchequer, and not put on the rates as an additional burden to the ratepayer?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE(Sir Burton Chadwick): 1 have been asked to reply. At the present moment, I can only say that the hon. Member's suggestion will he borne in mind.

ROAD AND STREET MAINTENANCE.

Mr. WADDINGTON: 74.
asked the Minister of Health what was the total expenditure by local authorities in Great Britain upon road and street maintenance during the last financial year for which the figures are available; what was the total expenditure by those authorities for
interest on loans and debt redemption in respect of roads and streets during the same period; and what was the amount of the contribution to such authorities from the Road Fund in respect of road maintenance, and interest, and debt redemption during the same period?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: According to returns received by my Department from local authorities in England and Wales for the year 1922-23, the local authorities expended (otherwise than out of loans) on the maintenance, repair, improvement and scavenging of public roads, streets and bridges sums amounting to £35,830,000, and paid as interest on loans and for the redemption of debt in respect of such roads, streets and bridges sums amounting to £4,415,000. The sums received by these authorities from Government Departments in respect of such expenditure amounted to £9,765,000, nearly all of which came from the Road Fund. For corresponding particulars re rating to Scotland I would refer my hon. Friend to the Secretary for Scotland.

GOLD (EXPORT)

Colonel DAY: 76.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the amount of bar gold that has been exported by the Bank of England since the removal of the embargo on gold exports; what was the destination of the same; will he state the value of the sovereigns exported during the same period; and to what countries were they destined?

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Churchill): : The total figures are bar gold £1,039,000 and sovereigns &£729,000. I will circulate the details in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how much has come into the Bank of England during the same period?

Following are the details promised:

The amount of bar gold which has been sold by the Bank of England during the period from the 29th April, 1925, to the 13th instant, inclusive, as stated in the daily announcements made by the Bank, has been £1,039,000. The destination of the bar gold is not published.

As similarly stated, the value of the sovereigns taken from the Bank for export during the same period has been &£729,000, the destinations being as follows:



£


India
633,000


South America
40,000


Switzerland
22,000


Egypt
5,000


Spain
'1,000


Holland
3,000


Gibraltar
5,000



£729,000

Oral Answers to Questions — FINANCE BILL.

ALCOHOLIC LIQUORS (EXPORT TAX).

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 77.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has considered an export tax on alcoholic liquors as a means of raising additional revenue; and what are the practical objections, if any. to such a tax?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I have nothing to add to the answer which I gave to the hon. and gallant Member on the 5th May, in reply to a question of a similar character.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Will the right hon. Gentleman refer to the answer given yesterday by the Financial Secretary.

Mr. CHURCHILL: I have answered this point. On the 5th May, dealing with the question of the broadening of the basis of taxation, I said:
 In framing the Budget I followed the usual procedure of examining in all their aspects a great number of proposals for both the reduction and imposition of taxation, and the results of my examination so far as the present year is concerned have been placed before the House." [OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th May, 1925; col. 750, Vol. 183.]

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say if, among other explorations, he looked into the question of taxing the export of alcoholic drink?

Mr. CHURCHILL: Yes, I did.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: What are the reasons why that has not been done?

Mr. JOHNSTON: Arising out of the original question, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he would not save considerable sums to the public Exchequer if he would cease giving an export bounty of 4d. on every gallon of whisky exported?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I am quite ready to re-examine the matter in the interval which will occur before the next Budget.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: I ant sorry to press the right hon. Gentleman. Can he give me an answer to the last part of the question. Will he say what are the practical objections?

Mr. SPEAKER: That cannot be done at Question Time.

SILK DUTIES.

Captain GARRO-JONES: 83.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether instructions have been issued to Customs officials to take record of all silk goods arriving in this country, with a view to making the import duty retrospective; whether he is aware that importers, in the belief that this course is being taken, are unable to quote prices to their customers and, in some cases, are being temporarily compelled to stop their imports; and whether, in order to remove this restraint on trade, he can give an assurance that any retrospective duties which may be imposed will apply only to imports shown to be over and above those received in the ordinary course of business, and not to those which are clearly not calculated to evade the impending duty?

Mr. CHURCHILL: Customs officials in the course of their ordinary duties take a record for the purposes of the trade returns of all goods arriving in this country, and these records would be available if any special action in the sense suggested by the hon. and gallant Member were contemplated with regard to silk and artificial silk goods. As stated in my reply of the 6th May to a question of a similar nature put by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Torquay on the subject of the McKenna Ditties, action with regard to seeking the authority of the House to ante-date the operation of any of the duties proposed by me in the Budget would depend upon whether the estimate of revenue shows signs of being
prejudiced by excessive importations. I am unable to give the assurance desired in the last part of the question, as I am satisfied that it would be impracticable to give effect to it.

GERMAN REPARATION (RECOVERY) ACT.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 78
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much money has been received, under the new system of collection here or on our account in Berlin, for goods exported from Germany to Great Britain and Northern Ireland since the suspension of the German Reparation (Recovery) Act and the recent agreement for the alternative methods of collection between the British and German Governments; whether any claims for refund on goods re-exported have been made; and, if so, to what amount?

Mr. CHURCHILL: The first payment under the new procedure was duly made on the 11th May, and amounted to £14C,000. No claim in respect of goods re-exported from this country arises either under the new procedure or under the old.

LUGGAGE EXAMINATION, CHANNEL PORTS.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: 80.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, with a view to facilitate examination of luggage at Dover and other Channel ports, he will arrange for the benches to be numbered off in sections, thereby enabling porters to deposit packages in the sections corresponding to their own numbers and so avoid the unnecessary delay and confusion existing al the present time?

Mr. CHURCHILL: The provision and arrangement of benches for the Customs examination of baggage is a matter for the railway company or other authority concerned. I understand that a proposal similar to that made by my hon. Friend is at present under consideration.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: Seeing that this examination of baggage is by the Customs, who are under His Majesty's Government, surely anything put forward by the right hon. Gentleman will be carefully attended to. To the admitted improvements at Dover and Folkestone the suggestion I
now make would prove to be a simple one to carry out.

Mr. CHURCHILL: I have said that it is under consideration.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: Will the right hon. Gentleman make all effort to see that it is put into practice as soon as possible for the benefit of travellers during the coming season?

Mr. CHURCHILL: We will await the result of the consideration to which I referred.

Oral Answers to Questions — GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.

PENSIONS (ASSESSMENT AND ISSUE).

Lieut.-Colonel WATTS-MORGAN: 82.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer which Government Departments are wholly or partly employed in the assessment or issue of pensions, grants, or allowances or other awards from statutory or non-statutory funds in respect of services to the-State or in consequence of disabilities arising during these services or in pursuance of provisions relating to old age; what was the average number of staff employed in each Department during the financial year 1924-25, and the cost of salaries and administrative charges for the same period, including the expenses of local inquiry officers, committees, &c.; and whether he will consider the possibility of concentrating in one Department all the executive work connected with these activities, with a vie,.v to economy in cost and simplification of machinery?

Mr. CHURCHILL: The Departments mainly concerned are the Treasury, the Paymaster-General's Office, the Home Office, the Scottish Office, the Service Departments, the Ministry of Pensions, the Revenue Departments, the Board of Education, the Scottish Education Department, the Ministry of Health and the Scottish Board of Health. Detailed particulars distinguishing the number and cost of the staff employed in each Department on the multifarious services mentioned is not available, and I do not think that the cost of its preparation would be justified.

STAFFS (PERIODICAL PAPERS).

Captain BULLOCK: 87
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury
whether he is satisfied that the expenditure on compiling the periodical papers on the number of Government staffs at such short intervals as one month is justified in present circumstances?

Mr. GUINNESS: Having regard to the minor character of the fluctuations which now take place from month to month, it is proposed, with a view to economy, to substitute as from the 1st July next quarterly statements for the two statements at present made monthly.

SMOKING.

Mr. ERSKINE: 90.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury if there is any Civil Service Regulation permitting Government servants in Government offices to smoke in office hours; and, if so, do they apply to all grades equally?

Mr. GUINNESS: There is no general Civil Service Regulation on the subject of smoking in Government offices in office hours. The extent. to which smoking may be allowed is within the discretion of heads of Departments.

AMERICAN DOLLARS (TREASURY PURCHASE).

Mr. THURTLE: 83.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will consider the possibility of carrying out the whole of the dollar credit transaction with the Federal Reserve Bank and thus save the 1375,000 commission which it is proposed to pay Messrs. Morgan and Company?

Mr. CHURCHILL: This proposal is quite impracticable. The whole transaction was inter-dependent, and has, moreover, been definitely concluded.

Mr. THURTLE: is the right hon. Gentleman aware that even in financial circles this commission paid to Messrs. Morgan and Co., is considered to be excessive?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I am not aware of that. I have seen a statement in a daily paper to that effect. but I believe that conisdering the service which has to be rendered, namely, the holding of this large sum of money at call for a long period of time, the commission is not at all excessive.

Mr. ERSKINE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the paper in question was the "daily liar?" [HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw!"]

Mr. SHORT: It was the "Evening Standard."

Mr. SPEAKER: It was a most improper remark to make.

IRISH FREE STATE (LAND PURCHASE ANNUITIES).

Captain GARRO-JONES: 84.
asked the Chancellorofthe Exchequer what is the total amount collected by the Irish Free State in respect of Irish land purchase annuities, and how much thereof has been paid to the Treasury under the provisions of Cd. 1911, of 1923 (Heads of working arrangements for implementing the Treaty)?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I have no up-to-date informatoin as regards the total amount actually collected. The Free State Government have agreed to pay over the full amount of the annuities accruing due from time to time, making themselves responsible for the collection. &£4,845,300 has been paid since the 1st. April, 1923. A sum estimated at £1,010,000 remains outstanding as at 31st March last pending the settlement of certain questions which have arisen as regards the incidence of Income Tax.

Captain GARRO-JONES: Is it not a fact that the Free State Government have a large sum in hand which has been collected on account of this Government, and have not yet paid it over?

Mr. CHURCHILL: Any question affecting a Dominion Government must be answered by the Colonial Secretary.

BRITISH ITALIAN CORPORATION, LIMITED.

Mr. MACLEAN: 86.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if any official or member of the Government., in whose name an arangement was made with the British Italian Corporation. Limited, by which this corporation received subsidies amounting to £283,418, has been, or is now, an official in, or a director of, the British -Italian Corporation?

Mr. CHURCHILL: The original agreement with the British Italian Corporation was signed on the 8th June. 1916, by the right. hon. L. Harcourt acting for the President of the Board of Trade, the right hon. Member for Swansea West,
who was ill. A second agreement—a formal one—of the 15th September, 1916, was signed by the right hon. Member for Swansea West as President. A third agreement of the 18th October, 1917, was signed by Lord Ashfield, then President of the Board of Trade; and the final agreement was signed on the 30th November, 1921, by my right hon. Friend the present Prime Minister, when President of the Board of Trade. I understand that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Swansea West is now a director of the British Italian Banking Corporation.

SYNTHETIC AMMONIA AND NITRATES, LIMITED.

Mr. J. BECKETT: 89.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether, in view of the fact that the purpose of the Trade Facilities Act is to give credit facilities for such schemes only as could not otherwise be immediately put in hand, he will say why credit to the extent of £2,000,000 has been granted to Synthetic Ammonia and Nitrates, Limited, a company With an authorised capital of £5,000,000, the shares of which are owned by Messrs. Brunner, Mond, Limited, whose authorised capital is &£15,000,000?

Mr. GUINNESS: The Trade Facilities Act. Advisory Committee, who are charged with the duty of investigating applications for guarantees and recommending the Treasury to give guarantees in suitable cases, were fully satisfied in this case that as a result of the guarantee the work would be put:n hand and proceeded with more rapidly than would otherwie have been the case.

Mr. BECKETT: Was the Committee aware of the extremely generous way in which the firm had already been dealt with by the Government?

Mr. GUINNESS: I do not think that that affects the particular question which they had to inquire into, which was as to whether work will be anticipated for the granting of the guarantee. I made special inquiries into this case, and I am satisfied that the Committee did o into it and were fully satisfied that at least an equivalent amount of work for the guarantee would be put. in hand at once, which otherwise would be delayed.

Mr. BECKETT: Is it not possible, in the local Medical Officer of Health is also view of the large credit to this firm, to medical officer to the contractors of the see that they restore the Government scheme; and whether he can state what reports which they have in their steps he is taking to secure proper possession?

CIVIL LIST PENSIONS.

Sir CHARLES OMAN: asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury what is the total number of persons on the Civil List pension roll paid from. the Con-solidated Fund; and what is the total sum of their pensions?

Mr. GUINNESS: The total number of pensioners is 316; the total sum of their pensions is £21,900

DARENTH VALLEY, KENT.

Mr. SMITHERS: 92.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is aware that during the recent heavy rains the River Darenth, Kent, has been blocked by an accumulation of weeds and fallen trees and consequently the valley must flood; that the Darenth Valley main sewer was not built to take storm water; that there is ho conservancy board for this river; and will he cause inquiries to be made and consider what steps can be taken to remedy this state of things?

The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Edward Wood): My attention has recently been called to this matter by the Darenth Valley Main Sewerage Board. The only power I have is to set up a drainage authority for the district on a petition either from the county council or from the riparian owners, and such a drainage authority could take action under the Land Drainage Acts to deal with the position of affairs to which my hon. Friend refers. I am communicating with the county council in the matter.

LOCHABER WATER SCHEME.

Mr. MACLEAN: (by Private Notice)
asked the Secretary for Scotland whether he has received telegrams from Fort William complaining of the sanitary arrangements at the Lochaber Water Scheme; whether he is aware that a number of men are seriously ill due to the insanitary conditions prevailing on the scheme; whether it is the case that
the local Medical Officer of Health is also medical officer to the contractors of the see that they restore the Government scheme; and whether he can state what reports which they have in their steps he is taking to secure proper sanitary arrangements being provided and so prevent the possibility of an epidemic?

The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Sir John Gilmour): The reply to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. With regard to the second part, I understand that there have been cases of diarrhœa, but the most recent Report of the Medical Officer of Health, which I have seen, dated 6th instant, states that there had been no request for the segregation of any case. With regard to the third part, I have no official knowledge, but I understand that the facts are as stated. With regard to the last part of the question, the Scottish Board of Health have already been in communication with the local authority and the Medical Officer of Health, but I am directing them to have further inquiry made to ensure that all proper precautions are being enforced.

Mr. MACLEAN: Am I to take it that the Secretary for Scotland has received no information from the local Medical Officer of Health since 6th May? Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that only three days ago eight people were taken from this place and on the following day two more, which is a later date than the 6th May? Will he find out if the local Medical Officer of Health is also medical officer for the contractors, and will that gentleman resign from one position or the other so that the Board may get the full benefit of his service?

Sir J. GILMOUR: The last Report which I have myself seen is dated the 6th May. but I have given instructions to have the matter looked into and further inquiries will be made.

Mr. MAXTON: Will the right hon. Gentleman also ask the local Medical Officer of Health, who possibly is waiting for requests for segregation, if the question of segregation does not rest with the Medical Officer of Health with whom does it rest?

Sir J. GILMOUR: There has been no cause for segregation. No disease requiring it has occurred.

Mr. MAXTON: He says that he is waiting for requests.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. J. RAMSAY MacDONALD: Will the -right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister inform us what business he proposes to take next week?

The PRIME MINISTER: On Monday and Tuesday, the Widows', Orphans', and Old Age Contributory Pensions Bill, Second Reading, and Committee stage of the necessary Money Resolution.

Wednesday: Criminal Justice [Money]. Committee; Teachers (Superannuation) [Money], Committee; Poor Law Emergency Continuance (Scotland) Bill, Report and Third Reading; Public Health (Scotland) Amendment Bill, Report and Third Reading; Widows', Orphans' and Old Age Contributory Pension's [Money]. Report; and, if time permit, other Orders on the Paper.

At 8.15 p.m. there will he Private Members' Motions.

Thursday: Supply, Committee—Ministry of Transport Vote.

The discussion on ex-ranker officers' pensions, which was to take place on Monday, 18th May, is postponed until Wednesday, 27th May. I understand that this arrangement is agreeable to hon. Members.

Mr. MacDONALD: When is it proposed to take the Money Resolution of the Widows', Orphans' and Old Ago Contributory Pensions Bill?

The PRIME MINISTER: I think that that should be a matter of arrangement, i) possible. My own view is that it might be practicable to get a Division an the Second Reading, say, about. a quarter-past eight o'clock, and to devote the rest of the evening to the Money Resolution. Perhaps steps will be taken to make an arrangement through the usual channel.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is intended to take all stages of the Pensions Bill on the Floor of the House, or will it go upstairs to a Standing Committee? It would be rather convenient to know.

The PRIME MINISTER: I am sorry that I cannot make a statement on that subject yet. A statement must be made after the Second Reading.

Mr. MacDONALD: I would be glad, Mr. Speaker, if you would be good enough to guide the House regarding the Private Business set down for to-night, and perhaps give us a ruling. There are two Bills down for Report. stage and Third Reading. There is a Motion that is about to lie put, exempting the second Bill from the operation of Standing Order No. 8. What I ask is this: When these two Bills were before the House for Second Reading, there was an agreement by which both of 'them would be discussed together, so far as Debate was concerned, and then that any Division which took place at the end of the Debate should he held to apply to both Bills. Under that arrangement, am I right in assuming that you held that when the Question regarding the second Bill was put, that Bill was unopposed, and that, therefore, it was not subject to the exemption provided for under Standing Order No. 8? Supposing the same arrangement is carried out to-day regarding the Report stage and the Third Reading of the same two Bills—if hon. Members will look at the Order Paper they will find that, so far as the notices of Amendment are concerned, that operation is to continue—would you again rule that, both as regards the Report stage and Third Reading of the second Bill, it would be regarded as Unopposed Business, and, therefore, not be subject to Standing Order No. 8, which means that you could take it if it was reached after 9.30?

Mr. SPEAKER: I think that the case to-day is not exactly like that to which the right hon. Gentleman has referred —although it is in the main—because IT is necessary to dispose of two stages of each of these [Electricity Supply] Bills, whereas there was only one stage on the last occasion. To he quite sure of that, it is necessary to have a Motion of this kind, dealing with what is known as the 9.30 Rule, Standing Order No. 8
With regard to the procedure tonight, I understand from the hon. Members who are concerned in opposing these Bills that it is the case that the points on the two Bills are practically the same, and that they would be content with raising them on the first Bill, without repeating them on the second Bill. With regard to the Amendments standing on the Paper, I
am informed that the first new Clause is accepted by the promoters in both cases. That leaves two main questions—two Amendments—which I should be disposed to select from those on the Paper. The first is that dealing with the question of the terms of transfer to the joint authority, and the second is that dealing with the maximum rate of dividend. My suggestion is that we might dispose of the first about 9.30 p.m. and of the other at about 11 o'clock. Then there might be. a Division on the Third Reading, which would have taken us beyond 11 o'clock. and would necessitate the proposed extension of time.
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That the Proceedings on any Private Business set down for consideration at a. quarter-past Eight of the Clock this evening by direction of the Chairman of Ways and Means be exempted from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House), and, notwithstanding anything in Standing Order No. 8, may be taken after half-past Nine of the Clock."[The Prime Minister.]

Captain BENN: I wish to ask the Prime Minister, in reference to this very interesting Motion, whether he has any precedent for it There may well be a precedent, but I can recollect none for suspending the Standing Order for the purpose of pushing through a Private Bill. Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether this procedure is unprecedented or whether it has happened on other occasions? I would like to say on this Motion that it seems to me very undesirable that business should be so compressed as to deprive many hon. Members of an opportunity of having a full day to discuss the unemployment question and finding other opportunities—

Mr. SPEAKER: The matter cannot be debated. It is the duty of the Chairman of Ways and Means, under Standing Orders, to set down Bills.

Captain BENN: I am trying to observe strictly the narrow limits which must govern any discussion on this Motion. If the Prime Minister would answer the question as to whether there is a precedent for the Motion, I would be glad. I would point out that the arrangements in reference to private business under Standing Order No. 8 are such that the business has to be arranged without taking up unduly the opportunity that Members have of discussing public business. That is laid down in Standing Order No. 8. It seems to me that this is a proper occasion for some protest to be made in the interest of the freedom of Debate as against the mere convenience of the Government in their business.

The PRIME MINISTER: I think that my hon. and gallant Friend will find the precedent that he desires in 1908, without going any further back. With regard to the Debate on unemployment, I. too, regret the shortness of the time. Of course, it is open to hon. Members to put down the same Vote again, and I hope very much that that may be done.

Question put,
 That the Proceedings on any Private Business set down for consideration at a quarter-past Eight of the Clock this evening by direction of the Chairman of Ways and Means be exempted from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House), and, notwithstanding anything in Standing Order No. 8, may he taken after half-past Nine of the Clock.

The House divided: Ayes. 218: Noes, 123

DivisionNo.102.]
AYES.
[3.58p.m


Acland Troyte,Lieut.-Colonel
Boothby, R. J. G.
Christie, J. A.


Ainsworth, Major Charles
Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer


Albery, Irving James
Bowyer, Capt. G.E.W
Clarry, Reginald George


Alexander, SirWm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)
Brass, Captain W
Cochrane, Commander Hon. AD


Applin, Colonel R.V.K
Briggs, J. Harold
Cockerill, Brigadier-General G.K.


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Willfrid W
Briscoe, Richard George
Cohen, Major J. Brunei


Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F.W
Brittain, Sir Harry
Cope. Major William


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Brocklebank, C.E.R
Couper, J.B


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Brooke, Brigadier-General C.R.1
Cralk, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry


Balniel, Lord
Brown, Maj. D.C.(N'th'I'd., Hexham)
Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)


Banks, Reginald Mitchell
Brown, Brlg.-Gen.H.C.(Berks.Newb'y)
Crookshank, Cpt. C. de W. (Berwick)


Barclay-Harvey, C.M
Bullock, Captain M
Crookshank, Cpt.H.(Lindsey, Gainsbro)


Barnett, Major Richard W
Burman, J. B.
Curzon, Captain Viscount


Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)
Burton, Colonel H. W
Davidson,J.(Hertl'd,Hemel Hempst'd)


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon w
Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Davies, A. V. (Lancaster, Royton)


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset. Yeovll)


Bentinck. Lord Henry Cavendish-
Campbell, E. T.
Dixey, A. C.


Betterton, Henry B.
Cazalet. Captain Victor A.
Doyle, Sir N. Grattan


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Drewe. C.


Blundell, F. N.
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N.(Ladywood)
Eden, Captain Anthony


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)
Remnant, Sir James


Elliot, Captain Walter E.
Kidd, J. (Llnllthgow)
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)


Ellis, R. G.
King, Captain Henry Douglas
Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hertford)


Erskine, James Malcolm Montlth
Kinloch Cooke, Sir Clement
Ropner, Major L.


Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)
Knox, Sir Alfred
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)
Lamb, J. Q.
Salmon, Major I.


Everard, W. Lindsay
Lane-Fox, Lieut.-Col. George R.
Sandeman, A. Stewart


Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Lister, Cunllffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.


Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)
Savery, S. S.


Fanshawe, Commander G. D.
Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green,
Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mcl. (Renfrew, W)


Fermoy, Lord
Locker-Lampson, Com. O.(Handsw'th)
Skelton, A. N.


Flelden, E. B.
Loder, J. de V.
Smith, R.W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Fleming, D. P.
Looker, Herbert William
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Ford, P. J.
Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Sprot, Sir Alexander


Foxcroft, Captain C. T.
Lumley, L. R.
Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F.(Will'sden, E.)


Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Lynn, Sir Robert J.
Steel, Major Samuel Strang


Gadle, Lieut.-Col. Anthony
MacAndrew, Charles Glen
Stott, Lieut. Colonel W. H.


Gates, Percy
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Strickland, Sir Gerald


Gee, Captain R.
Macdonald, R.(Glasgow, Cathcart)
Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.


Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Macmillan, Captain H.
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Glyn, Major R. G. C.
McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John
Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.


Grace, John
Macquisten, F. A.
Tasker, Major R. Inigo


Greene, W. P. Crawford
Maltland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Grotrlan, H. Brent
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
Thomson, Sir W.Mitchell-(Croydon,S.)


Gunston, Captain D. W.
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw-
Tryon, Rt. Hon George Clement


Hammersley, S. S.
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Vaughan Morgan, Col. K. P.


Hanbury, C.
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Waddlngton, R.


Hartlngton, Marquess of
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Ward, Lt.-Col. A.L.(Klngston-on Hul)


Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Haslam, Henry C.
Murchison, C. K.
Warrender, Sir Victor


Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Nail, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Joseph
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Nelson, Sir Frank
watts, Dr. T. 


Heneage. Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.
Neville, R. J.
wells, S. R.


Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Wheler, Major Granville C. H.


Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)
White, Lieut.-Colonel G. Dalrymple


Hilton, Cecil
Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


Holland, Sir Arthur
Nuttall, Ellis
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Homan, C. W. J.
Oakley, T.
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Hopkins, J. W. W.
O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)
Windsor Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William
Wise, Sir Fredric


Howard, Captain Hon. Donald
Pennefather, Sir John
Wood, Rt. Hon. E. (York, W.R., Ripon)


Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Wood, E. (Chest'r. Stalyb'dge &Hyde).


Hudson. R. S. (Cumberl'nd, Whitch'n)
Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.).


Huntingfield, Lord
Peto, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Wood, Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)


Hurd, Percy A.
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton
Wragg, Herbert


Jackson. Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S.
Preston, William
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)
Price, Major C. W. M.
Young, E. Hilton (Norwich)


Jacob, A. E.
Radford, E. A.



James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Raine, W.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES—


Jephcott, A. R.
Ramsden, E.
Colonel Gibbs and Major Sir Harry


Joynson Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William
Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)
Barnston.


NOES


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
George, Rt. Hon. David Lloyd
Kelly, W. T.


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Gibbins, Joseph
Kennedy, T.


Attlee, Clement Richard
Gosling, Harry
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Kirkwood, D.


Barker. G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Lansbury, George


Barr, J.
Greenall, T.
Lawson, John James


Batey, Joseph
Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Lee, F.


Beckett. John (Gateshead)
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Livingstone, A. M.


Benn, Captin Wedgwood (Leith)
Groves, T.
Lowth, T.


Briant, Frank
Grundy, T. W.
Lunn, William


Broad, F. A.
Hall. G. H. (Merthyr Tydvll)
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R.(Aberavon)


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Mackinder, W.


Buchanan, G.
Hardle, George D.
MacLaren, Andrew


Charleton, H. C.
Harney, E. A.
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)


Cluse, W. S.
Harris, Percy A.
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
March, S.


Comton, Joseph
Hayes, John Henry
Maxton, James


Connolly, M.
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Montague, Frederick


Cove, W. G.
Hirst, G. H.
Morris, R. H.


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)


Day, Colonel Harry
Hore-Bellsha, Leslie
Murnin, H.


Duncan, C.
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Palin, John Henry


Dunnico, H.
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Paling. W.


Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Ponsonby, Arthur


Fenby, T. D.
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Potts, John S.


Forrest, W.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Richardson, R.(Houghton-le-Spring)


Riley, Ben
Snell, Harry
Wedgwood, Rt.Hon. Joslah


Ritson, J.
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip
Westwood, J.


Robertson, J. (Lanark, Bothwell)
Spencer, George A. (Broxtowe)
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.


Robinson, W. C. (Yorks,W.R.,Elland)
Stamford, T. W.
Whiteley, W.


Salter, Dr. Alfred
Stephen, Campbell
Wignall, James


Scrymgeour, E.
Sutton, J. E.
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Scurr, John
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H.(Derby)
Williams, David (Swansea, E.)


Sexton, James
Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro. W.)
Williams, Dr. J. H.(Llanelly)


Shiels, Dr. Drummond
Thurtle, E.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Tinker, John Joseph
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Sltch, Charles H.
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.
Wilson, R. J.(Jarrow)


Slesser, Sir Henry H.
Viant, S. P.
Wright, W.


Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)
Wallhead, Richard C.



Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)
Watson, W. M (Dunfermilne)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Smith, Rennle (Penlstone)
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)
Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr.




Warne.

NEWPORT CORPORATION BILL.

Reported, with Amendments [Title amended], from the Local Legislation Committee (Section B); Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

SOUTH METROPOLITAN GAS BILL.

Reported, with Amendment; Report to lie upon the Table.

CHAIRMEN'S PANEL.

Mr. WILLIAM NICHOLSON reported from the Chairmen's Panel; That they had appointed Mr. Short to act as Chairman of Standing Committee A (in respect of the Merchant Shipping (International Labour Conventions) Bill[Lords]; Sir Robert Sanders to Standing Committee B (in respect of the Criminal Justice Bill), also Major Barnett (in respect of the Teachers (Superannuation) Bill); and Sir Robert Hamilton to Standing Committee C (in respect of the Public Health Bill).

Report to lie upon the Table.

PROTECTION OF BIRDS BILL.

Lords Amendment to be considered To morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 178.]

LEGITIMACY BILL [Lords].

Read the First time: to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 179.]

CIRCUIT COURTS AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE (SCOTLAND) BILL [Lords].

Read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 180.]

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

That they have agreed to,—

Importation of Pedigree Animals Bill, without Amendment.

Protection of Birds Bill, with Amendments.

That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to authorise the sale and use for building of the churchyard or burial ground of the former church of St. Mildred. Poultry, in the City of London; and for other purposes." [St. Mildred's Churchyard Bill[Lords.]

And also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confirm a Provisional Order under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, relating to Forfar Gas." [Forfar Gas Order Confirmation Bill[Lords.]

Moneylenders (Amendment) Bill.— That they concur with the Commons in their Resolution communicated to them yesterday respecting the Moneylenders (Amendment) Bill.

ST. MILDRED'S CHURCHYARD BILL [Lords.]

Read the First time: and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

FORFAR GAS ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL [Lords.]

Read the First time, and ordered (under Section 7 of the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899) to be considered To-morrow.

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY.

[6th ALLOTTED DAY].

Considered in Committee

[Mr. JAMES HOPE in the Chair.]

CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS ESTIMATES, 1925–26

CLASS VII

MINISTRY OF LABOUR

Motion made, and Question proposed,
 That a sum, not exceeding £8,339,209, Lie granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which sill come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1926, or the Salaries and Expenses of the Ministry of Labour and Subordinate Departments, including the Contributions to the Unemployment Fund, and Payments to Associations, Local Education Authorities, and others for administration under the Unemployment Insurance and Labour Exchanges Acts; Expenditure in connection with the Training of Demobilised Officers, Non-Commissioned Officers and Men, and Nurses; Grants for Resettlement in Civil Life; and the Expenses of the Industrial court; also Expenses in connection with the International Labour Organisation (League)1 Nations), including a Grant-in-Aid.—"&—jNor.s: &£5,500,000has beenvoted on account.]

Mr. CLYNES: I beg to move to reduce "the Vote by £100.
I have heard in this House for several years past Ministers of Labour declare themselves in optimistic terms of the ultimate solution of the problem of unemployment, and they have persuaded themselves that they could see some silver lining in the cloud. The figures of unemployment at this moment may not he quite as high as once they were, but the position is worse in kind. It is worse in degree, for the reason that the longer it lasts, the worse it must become in all its consequences and aspects. We are given to looking, as far as possible, on the bright side of things in this country, and in this House in particular. But it is when we approach this subject that our complacency almost entirely disappears. For the effect of unemployment cannot be estimated by just considering its personal results in the case of those who
suffer. We must think of its effects in relation to housing, and to the
consequent inability of a large number of the poorer classes to seek the better shelter which they ought to enjoy, for lack of means to provide it for them. We must think of it in relation to health problems, in relation to all that condition which we call "unrest," if not in relation to those occasional rumblings, of symptoms of tendencies to welcome revolution.
These, then, are all part of the general question of unemployment. We are consoled—indeed, we are fortified—by a condition, which, I think, will be universally admitted in this House, and that is the uniform respect for the law of the land on the part of the general mass of the working community, whether they are in work or not. They resignedly wait for improvement, and many great drafts have been made upon their patience. But neither their patience, nor the cause which demands it, can be regarded by any of us as conditions which can last indefinitely. They must come to an end. We had in the King's Speech, in the present Session of Parliament, a very definite declaration that unemployment would receive the constant attention of His Majesty's Ministers. The statement was:
The various schemes which have already been initiated for the relief of unemployment, including those relating to juvenile unemployment, will be examined with great care, and you will be asked to make provision for the continuance and extension of all such measures as are likely to alleviate the present distresses".
Has this House been asked yet to consider these Measures, their extension and their continuance? Where are the Measures? What the the Measures I The Session is well advanced, and already it is burdened with the proposals put before it, which are likely to take up a very large part of our time. Are we to have an Autumn interval, in which the House will not be asked to do anything at all, or is the Autumn to be used for this question, already urgent? In short, I ask, why is it that so far nothing whatever has been submitted to the House in the way of Measures" likely to alleviate the present distresses "? Perhaps my right hon. Friend, in the course of the discussion, will give us exactly the figures representing the Measure of unemployment to-day, though, let. it be remembered, that there is a large number out of work, not included in the official returns at all. I
have not before me exactly the figures, but I believe they are in the neighbourhood of 1,250,000, that number, representing, I think, roughly about 150,000 more than was the case when the Labour Government were in office about this time last year.
Many thought, and perhaps more said, that a change of Government would give us a stability and a confidence in commerce and industry which, assuredly, would greatly reduce this number. The Labour Government, having last year lived only half the time of the present Government, with neither the power nor the means to apply its principles on industrial questions, were met with repeated demands to settle this question. We have at least to ask ourselves two questions as to the fundamental causes of continued unemployment. Have our former customers lost permanently their power to take our goods, or have we lost the faculty to sell within their means to buy? If those questions must be answered in the affirmative—and I am disposed at this stage to go far in affirmative answers to them—then I say we must turn our attention more fully to our great internal resources and exhibit a greater courage—a courage on a far higher scale—in the application of those resources to the solution of this problem. Those great works of industrial, social, and economical construction so frequently discussed towards the end of the War and after its close have not been achieved. Those big tasks of development have not yet been attempted at all, and we are wasting and squandering possibilities of wealth, which might be created by work, by failing to use the resources to which T. refer. Any general observation of this kind is met with the question, "What will it cost to do it? "The answer is, "Look at what it now costs not to do it."
Let us consider the fatal consequences of not applying new principles and a totally new view to the treatment of this great problem. I recall, two or three years ago, when Sir Montague Barlow first announced the schemes of the Government of that day and gave statistics as to the probable number of workers who would he absorbed and kept more or less constantly in work by the application of the schemes then outlined.
What a falling off there has been in practice! The Minister of Labour will admit that these schemes, so far as they have been applied at all, have not gone one-tenth of the way that was forecast at the time of the announcement to which refer. Perhaps the Chancellor of the Exchequer will expect me, later on, the say a few words on a recent statement of his as to one cause of high unemployment figures at this moment, but I should, like here to call him as a witness in support of the general proposal which I am submitting. Long after he had attained his full stature, long after he had come of age as a public man, the right hon. Gentleman dealt on occasion with industrial, social and economic questions, and expressed his faith in those days in the following words, which I take from book of his speeches:
There is a growing feeling, which share, against allowing those services which are in the nature of monopolies to pass into private hands. There is a steady determination, which I am convinced will become effective, to intercept all future unearned increment which may arise from increase it the speculative value of land. There will be an ever-widening area of municipal enterprise. I go further. I am of opinion that the State should increasingly assume the position of the reserve employer of labour.
That is a faith which, if the right hon. Gentleman has deserted it, we stand be and urge upon the view and the consideration of the House to-day. I putting forward that view at that time the right hon. Gentleman added the hope that people would judge these proposals on their merits and not be scared from them
just because some old woman comes along and tells you they are Socialistic.
I do not know how many "old women the right hon. Gentleman thinks hon. seats in this House to-day, but certain there are many who will repudiate hon. doctrine both in speech and by their vote in the Division Lobby.
I have already said I do not think the Government have used their resources I relation to those works of reconstruction about which so much has been said, no do I think the Government have done and that is possible and all that is with our means as t-o trade development. With our Dominions. The Dominions show very high percentage of trade value Anyone who examines the figures must struck with the worth, from the me
standpoint of trade value, of Australia and Canada to this country, and I think we could make a fuller use of that great thing called credit—elusive, sometimes indefinable, but there as an immense national asset, which the nation could use to a. greater extent than it has yet done. It could thereby provide much cheaper money for the development of many great undertakings in the Dominions and it could, by a system of better transport facilities, do much more than has yet been attempted by this Government which has an enormous majority at its back—a majority which should be ready to give every support to undertakings of this kind.
While we say we should turn to our own people and link up trade with the Dominions as far and as fast as possible, we turn also to foreign countries and we firmly hold the view that there is one foreign country—namely, Russia, offering us great trading opportunities which we have neglected to the detriment of our own interests. Russia has six times the population of the whole of our Dominions put together—I mean our self-governing Dominions. Surely it is not beyond us to negotiate now with Russia on terms which would give us security for repayment and orders for our goods. The Chancellor of the Exchequer the other day alluding to conversations yet to be bold with trade representatives, expressed the hope that they would talk business and not politics when they met him. I think it is time that on this question of Russia we talked less of politics and more business. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear! "] In view of those cheers, I shall hear with the greatest pleasure anything said from the opposite side of the Committee by way of urging the Government to give effect to this aspiration and to develop trade between this country and Russia. This subject is also dealt with at length in the King's Speech, in which it was said that it was the desire of the Government that normal intercourse between the two countries should not be interrupted. Then we have the declaration that the trade agreement of 16th March, 1921, is all that is at present possible to do to foster mutual trade. I submit that, since that King's Speech was written, time has proven to us that the trade agreement of 1921 does not in any sense of the term do all that can be done
to foster and develop trade between that country and this.
There are many of my hon. Friends and other Members of the House anxious to deal with these aspects of the question which I have only broached, and I proceed to another subject. The Prime Minister has not only appealed for a better spirit in which to face industrial and labour problems. He has said much to cultivate and develop that spirit, but whatever good has been accomplished by the Prime Minister has nearly been destroyed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I welcome these appeals for goodwill. They are, I am convinced, appeals which can be made quite consistently with adherence to one's convictions and principles as to how these problems are to be met, but we shall not assist the solution of any branch of this problem by offensive and inaccurate charges levelled against the general body of the workers. What did the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer say? We can quote what he said, and we should like to know what he meant. He asked us to make sure that there was not growing up a general habit of learning how to qualify for unemployment benefit.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER(Mr. Churchill): It should be "a certain habit." it has also been reported as "a general habit," hut the "Daily Herald" is quite correct.

Mr. CLYNES: I do not think the change in adjectives in any sense reduces the number of people against whom the charge was levelled, and perhaps as the Debate proceeds we shall have some qualification or some clear explanation of what was meant by the statement, even with the slight alteration which has been made. There is between us and hon. Members on the other side a considerable extent of common ground on many of the questions relating to unemployment. There is no disagreement about the pernicious effects of prolonged idleness upon the character and the disposition of thousands of the working class. There is, however, idleness in other quarters, net compulsory idleness, but that idleness which is claimed almost as a right and enjoyed as a privilege. That idleness is no less harmful in its social and moral consequences on the character of the
people who enjoy it. In other words, Society pays for idleness morally and economically, whether that idleness is suffered by one class or enjoyed by another, and I say that the class which begs for work and strives to get it, in order to provide a living for itself should be free from charges of malingering or complaints of evasion of service. If there is any case of purposeful idleness and deliberate intention not to work, that idleness is balanced by an earnest and eager search for work on the part of the great mass who are doomed to unemployment. Why, there are in the newspapers recurring paragraphs giving accounts of grim and actual physical struggles among groups of workers who have been found literally fighting each other for the chance of getting first to a certain place where jobs were advertised. If the right hon. Gentleman believes there is a "general" or a "certain" disinclination on the part of workers to seek for work, let him advertise for five men to do any sort of general job at No. 11. Downing Street, and he will have 500, if not 5,000, men in that street at once. The view of the right hon. Gentleman, I am certain, will not be supported by any party, either present or past, attached to the Ministry of Labour. Only a few days ago the Minister of Labour had to refer to the general causes of the increase in the numbers of unemployed, but he gave no such explanation as to a cause as that given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He said:
On the whole, the general tendency of unemployment has been not to fall so quickly this year, and there has not been that improvement in trade that we hoped for. "—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th April, 1925; col. 151. Vol. 183.]
He said that there were certain seasonal changes in the market and in trade accounting for changes in the figures. In short, for the first time in this House we have had a responsible representative spokesman of the Government place upon the shoulders of the workers themselves a large part of the blame for the conditions from which they are suffering. Let me go back to witnesses in the past. Dr. Macnamara, when at the Ministry of Labour, on the 9th February, 1922, said that the vast majority of the unemployed were quite honest men, and would prefer work to doles. On 5th
March, 1923, referring to this question in this House, I made the following statement, which, as the OFFICIAL REPORT will show, was endorsed and cheered by both Sir Montague Barlow and Dr. Macnamara:
We have been assured by Ministers of Labour that within their knowledge, in the main, the vast majority of the men affected by this problem of unemployment are men willing to work, seeking it eagerly, and trying to find it, day by day and hour by hour."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th March, 1923: col. 9S, Vol. 161.]
And much more testimony of that kind could be adduced in flat contradiction of the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Even if there was any certain or general disposition of the kind referred to, one might well ask, What is the Ministry of Labour doing to deal with that disposition? I have had some personal experience arising from my administrative work in a trade union, of what are the difficulties placed in the way of unemployed workmen getting their pay. Stringent regulations are enforced by a large body of officials, and men are required to prove their title to insurance benefit before they can get it. During their period of benefit, their receipt of it is under constant review, and innumerable conditions must be fulfilled in order to receive and in order to continue to receive it. I could name the three outstanding conditions as these: If a man voluntarily leaves his work without just cause, without cause estimated to be just in the opinion of others—he has not to judge himself—he is disqualified from benefit; if he refuses suitable work which is offered to him, work deemed to be suitable in the judgment of others and not himself, he can be disqualified from benefit and if he fails to secure work and to go out to seek it he can have his benefit discontinued if, in the judgment of others again, he has failed to comply with that part of the regulations. I say that, in face of all these facts, the reproach which I have quoted ought not to have been levelled against a class as a class. They do not deserve it.
Indeed, these efforts to impose blame, to move, as it were. the blame from the shoulders of those who ought to carry the blame to the shoulders of the innocent, are becoming far too common, and before I sit down I shall trouble the Committee with just a few brief testimonies from very different quarters. There is the
classic instance, of course, of the brick-setters. How we can manage, as the present Minister of Health says, to build more houses now than have ever been built in the history of this country, and at the same time make charges, as many of his colleagues do, against bricksetters for not building houses at all, is something which I shall leave to them to reconcile. I am not going to quote any working-class testimony. Sir Charles Ruthen, the Director-General of Housing, wrote some few months ago a letter in the "Times" on this question of the reputed malingering of the bricksetter. It was said that Sir Charles had declared himself in favour of the way in which bricks were laid in Holland as compared with this country, and he concluded his letter, in which he repudiated the statement, in these, words:
I am not prepared to admit for a single moment that the Dutch workman produces a greater volume of output than the British workman, but would rather state definitely that the quality and quantity of work produced by the British workman in the building industry is equal, if not superior, to that of the workman in any other country".
Sir Henry Thornton is very well-known in this country as a great captain of industry and railway manager, both on this side of the water and on the other, and, speaking recently in Canada, he said:
I have bad considerable experience with labouring men on both sides of the Atlantic, perhaps more especially in England, and I have never yet had a trade union leader or a trade union play any other way than is fair.
Lord Leverhulme, who has just passed away from us, knew workmen and employers very intimately, and I, therefore, want to put his testimony upon record. He was usually frank in dealing with the working-classes, and often he was equally blunt, as well as accurate, in dealing with his own class, and in his hook on the "Six-Hour Day" these words are to be found:
 Every increase in wages and shortening of hours has been resisted by business men as ft raid on their ability to meet competition and to make reasonable profits.
To that he added:
We have in the United Kingdom the finest type of workpeople in the human race —second to none in the whole world".
I trouble the Committee with this evidence because we are assumed to be prejudiced, and I think what I have quoted
from those quarters ought not to fall upon deaf ears. My last point is that of endeavouring to prove that this is a time when, least of all, the workers should be reproached or condemned for failing to do their duty, for they have made their sacrifices. Indeed, they represent the only class in this Kingdom who have been required in recent years to make any sacrifices at all in the interests of trade and industry. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh! "] I mean that sort of sacrifice which takes the form of having to forfeit something of which you are in real need. I do not mean something that you want, or that you can easily do without, but something which is a definite, physical necessity in the way of a life amenity or of a life requirement, and there has been no corresponding sacrifice of that kind made by the higher-paid gentlemen of England, by salaried servants in the enjoyment of remuneration which always enables them to save automatically, while at the same time maintaining themselves at whatever might be their accustomed level of living. It is on record that. about £600,000,000 a year have had to be forfeited in recent years by the wage-earning classes as their contribution to the maintenance and stability of British trade, and yet the returns compiled by the "Economist" and by other papers show that, in 1924, 1,411 industrial companies increased their profits by more than £8,000,000. The truth is that the ratio of profits to capital was higher last year than in any previous year since the trade slump began.
Let me put to the right hon. Gentleman, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, this fact, that, in spite of all these great and heavy reductions in wages, his Budget speech this year again showed that he is able, from estates and from great incomes, to draw a greater yield of Income Tax at this stage than ever, so that it is clearly upon record as a fact, proven by figures, that only the workers are making the material sacrifices in the interests of trade and commerce. Hon. Members will find in the papers of yesterday a report relating to the Fine Cotton Spinners and Doublers' Association, a report which showed a profit for the year ending 31st March, 1925, of—

The CHAIRMAN: I presume the right hon. Gentleman is using these things as part of an argument which will affect something which the Minister of Labour
might do or should do. We are discussing the Ministry of Labour Vote.

Mr. CLYNES: Certainly, Mr. Hope. They are part of my argument, that the sacrifice of wages has not resulted in that improvement of trade which it was foretold would occur, and I have shown that it has become the Government's duty to turn to our own inner resources to deal with unemployment, and I am further showing the injustice of sacrifice when that sacrifice is imposed upon one class only. Now I have finished. I repeat, that the workers do not deserve the censure which they have received, but that, on the contrary, they are entitled, in addition to the meagre material help which is theirs, to the sympathy of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and of the Government of the day, and, indeed, if that sympathy is to be given, it should be proved to be a reality by backing it up with a statesmanship which will remove the causes of the unemployment from which they are suffering.

The CHAIRMAN: Does the right hon. Gentleman move the reduction of the Vote?

Mr. CLYNES: Yes

Mr. CHURCHILL: I have no wish to intervene in this Debate, nor have I the slightest intention of trespassing upon the attention of the Committee for more than a very few moments, but the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Plat ting (Mr. Clynes), who has just spoken, specifically referred to the episode or scene which took place in the House of Commons, I think, about a fortnight ago. He suggested, and, in fact, questioned me on the subject. I think, however, before the right hon. Gentleman and others indulge in these reproaches, that some word of regret or excuse is called for on the part of those concerned in the proceedings—the very regrettable and unreasonable proceedings—which took place on the occasion referred to. Supposing a Minister or a Member of Parliament makes a statement with which another part of the House does not agree, or regards as uncharitable or even offensive, there is not the slightest justification for the organised shouting down of the Minister. [Interruption.] I am only
speaking because I have been desired to speak. It is not out of any desire on my part, or for the sake of speaking. I am replying to a request which was made to me that I should thoroughly justify what I said. Might I point out that if you cannot say unpalatable things on matters of public urgency and importance without such a scene, then Parliamentary Debate would be impossible. The right hon. Gentleman opposite has said many hard things of myself, but I have had to bear them in good part; and I should have thought that if anything that- I said was untrue, or palpably exaggerated, or unfair, what more could my oponents desire than that they should get that statement on record, when they could exhibit it, and show me as stultifying myself, and as having failed in good, taste and in fairness of mind? However, I leave that altogether. [Interruption.] I leave that matter altogether, because it is a matter in which my conduct was sustained by the Chair, and also by the opinion of the country.
What was the statement I made? Let us see what it was. I have not the slightest intention of picking a quarrel, but the hon. Member opposite continually interrupted me the other night. I think he was one of the ring-leaders in what were very improper, unreasonable, and silly proceedings. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh ! "] Nothing was further from my intention than picking a quarrel with hon. Members opposite. I have lived a long time in this House of Commons, anal I have always maintained pleasant relations with my political opponents as well as with my political friends. Is it likely that- a Chancellor of the Exchequer, with months of Budget discussion before him, is going out of his way merely to say something unpleasant or offensive to any import-ant group, or section, or party in the House? Nothing was further from my desire and intention. Nor in fact did I do so. What did I say? Let me read from the "Daily Herald":
 It was in the interest of the trade unionists who arc long-established contributors to this fund as well as to the employers and industries themselves that they should make sure that there was not growing up a certain habit of learning to qualify for unemployment benefit.
That does not in the slightest degree reflect upon the great mass of trade
unionists[Interruption.]Hon. Members have asked me to say something. It is at their invitation that I am giving an explanation of what I said. What I said was not any reflection upon the mass of the hardworking people who are, by the temporary trade dislocation, exposed to the miseries, sufferings, and anguish of unemployment; it was intended to draw attention to what I believe is the undoubted fact, that, as the system of unemployment benefit has been extended, individuals of other classes are beginning to take advantage of it in ways which were never foreseen—[Interruption]it must not be forgotten that I was the Minister responsible for the framing of the Unemployment Insurance Act of 1909—taken advantage of in a way, I say, which was never foreseen by those who proposed the Act. I am not going into a laboured defence of the matter, but I have been innundated with information from all parts of the country on which I could very easily formulate a very considerable case. I do not propose, however, to do it.

Mr. NEIL MACLEAN: The Minister of Labour could not do so

The CHAIRMAN: The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Platting (Mr. Clynes) was heard in perfect silence. I would ask hon. Members to give the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who has been invited to give an explanation, the same hearing as given to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Platting.

Mr. CHURCHILL: I am not going to deal with the policy of the Government in this matter. That is going to be unfolded in this Debate by the Minister of Labour. I am certainly not going to intrude upon his province, unless a very much more formidable challenge is made to me on some future occasion. This, however, I would say: My reference to this topic in the Debate to which we, are referring was purely incidental and towards the close of a reply to a certain part of the criticisms on the Budget proposals. Moreover, my intentions were benevolent. They were not in the least hostile. I wished to point out, what undoubtedly is the very serious fact, that 11,000,000 of the working classes, men and women, who are employed in our industries are being charged 3d. a week more than the
normal for this deficiency period. No one has spoken more plainly on this subject than the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury). His remarks have been far more outspoken than anything I have said. I take it to be a very serious thing that this very heavy charge for which those who are in employment have got to pay—because they are not themselves getting anything out of the Insurance Fund it respect of it, but are merely assisting to bear this heavy burden of the deficiency. The employers are similarly paying an extra 4d. a week but the State is only paying &£13,000,000 out of the total sum. That is a heavy burden, but it is not in my opinion, so serious a burden as the 3d. a week from the wages of 11,000,000 people. Whilst I am bound to say that the fund ought to bear the cost if necessary relief of unemployment, we must be sure that everything is being done to bring it into a solvent condition. If necessary, it may be the duty of the Government, and of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, to see if it is not possible, by some further aid, to assist and accelerate the passing away of the deficiency period and so relieve all those who at present find this a heavy tax on their wages, in return for which they are not themselves laying up benefit, but are simply assisting to tide others over this very difficult period. That is all I wish to say on that point, and I have said all I mean to say as to the other night. I was not wishful to give offence of any sort or kind; and I am much obliged to hon. Gentlemen opposite for having allowed me to make this explanation.

5.0 P.M

Mr. HARRIS: I had hoped that the right lion. Gentleman the Member for Platting (Mr. Clynes) would have tried in the course of his speech to find out what was the policy of the Government for the next 12 months. There is no real substantial difference as to the facts of the case. The fact shat there is this large mass of men anxious and willing to work and to get employment living on insurance pay is bad for the industry of the country and bad for themselves—bad for the country in every way. As I understand it, we see generally the result of six months in office of right hon. Gentlemen opposite, and the promises made by the Government, and expectations held out. I will not say expectations, for they were practically the same,
and followed the same course, as those of the last three or four Governments. There is no difference except for some ingenious experiment in the way of Protection. What I want to impress now upon the Committee is the fallacy of relief schemes. In London we have had some very ambitious schemes think hon. Members will agree that the local authorities, arid everybody concerned, have co-operated and tried to encourage and stimulate organised relief works. Actually the London County Council has gone out of its way to encourage the construction of roads quite outside its area and province; and during the last few years no less than 100 miles of road has been constructed and added to the London roads in order to give relief to the unemployed. I happen to have been able to get the actual figures. I find that these roads—I am not saying they are not a good investment—have cost the Departments concerned no less a sum than £6,000,000, out of which the London rates contributed the very large sum of four and a-half million pounds. At no time during the construction of these roads have more than 7,000 men been employed. At the present time, I think the number is 1,686. Incidentally. that is a very inadequate return for the contribution out of the London rates, but it is ample proof that it is not by relief schemes, not by making new roads, making paths or laying out public playing-fields, all good things in themselves, that we are going to make any adequate contribution to solving the problem of unemployment.
The only other what I may call direct scheme of relief is to he found in the continuation of house construction. Throughout the whole country there is an ample opportunity to find work in house building for the unemployed. In London not only have we nine estates being developed, but during the last few months the London County Council have bought three more large estates upon which to build houses. This means not only direct employment in house construction but a large amount of work in constructing drains and sewers, laying gas-mains, and so on. Here, unfortunately, the Ministry of Labour has failed to give any assistance. We are held up in London, as is the case throughout the country, by the
absence of the necessary skilled labour. I find at the present time that, although nine estates are being developed, only 640 bricklayers are being employed on house construction by the London County Council. I have inquired about it, and am informed that this number cannot be increased because not a single other man can be obtained. I would point out to the Minister of Labour that here is an avenue, above all others, where he can render assistance, because while only 640 bricklayers are being employed there is employment for 3,300 unskilled workmen, quite apart from carpenters, joiners, tilers and all other skilled craftsmen.
I have suggested that we might persuade local authorities to take this matter in hand, and I have had the natural and proper answer that this is a national question and that it can be solved only on national lines that if one authority starts to work out a scheme for providing the necessary skilled labour, the advantage would not go to that area because the men might be drawn away by private builders in other parts of the country. If the Government would recognise that this is not a matter of housing only, but is directly concerned with the whole question of employment, we could find here an important and valuable contribution to the question. This Government and the last Government have accepted a scheme for building subsidised houses over a period of years. Is it unreasonable to say to the building unions concerned, "You have agreed to men being specially trained in order to build subsidised houses. We will agree to give them permanent employment for a period of 15 years, and we will also encourage and allow the direct employment of labour "? If in this very simple, straightforward job of building houses of brick local authorities were to go in for direct employment, and be allowed train the necessary skilled labour, nor only would we get houses, but we should make a very big inroad into the whole unemployment problem. That is not dependent upon the state of trade, it is a self-contained industry, and it would give employment, not only to men directly concerned, but would set going a hundred and one other trades—cabinet makers, paper makers, the manufacturers of paint all the trades interconnected with building operations.
That, in my view, is the most important thing the Minister of Labour has got to do in the next few months. He will have to find and train the necessary skilled labour from the great army of men unemployed in the building trade, and get an arrangement with the building unions and the master federations. The scheme of training apprentices is not really working. Not only is it not working, but even if it did work it would fail to provide the large number of men so badly required if we are to carry out the policy of the Government for housing. But, after all, even the building trade proposals are largely in the nature of relief for unemployment. My view is, and I believe anybody who gives any thought to the subject must agree, that the real remedy is to get our trade going, to get men back into their ordinary industrial occupations, into textiles, engineering, coal mining, and all the other trades that make up our national industrial organization.
I submit to the Minister that no one is more qualified than he is to grapple with this difficult question if he will have a little courage and more imagination. Both his training and his history have intimately associated him with the machinery of Employment Exchanges. They were set up, I believe, by the present Chancellor of the Exchequer, under a Liberal Government, as a means of dealing with unemployment. They were the result of a great deal of scientific investigation, and we were led to believe that when great cycles of unemployment came along their machinery would provide the organisation for dealing with it. Unfortunately, that. machinery has been diverted from the business of finding employment to the ordinary banking business, Poor Law business, of distributing the money paid into the insurance fund.
On more than one occasion I have visited Employment Exchanges, and have seen the dismal queue of men lining up day after day in order to draw unemployment benefit. I have seen the machinery working, and I am going to say, what I think will be borne out by anybody who has watched it, that it is most unsatisfactory. They have long ceased to be Employment Exchanges, and what their work really amounts to is a. test of the genuineness of men seeking employment. Even there they do not
really work satisfactorily, because the Exchanges are so organised that there is no adequate machinery for finding employment. Employment Exchanges ought to realise that it is their business not to act as a sort of detective agency, merely to discover cases of fraud, but actually to find work for the people concerned. From what they tell me, and I think it is absolutely right, they have not the staff, either trained or with the time, to obtain a knowledge of the industries in their district. If a proper staff were employed it should not be impossible in any area served by an Employment Exchange for that staff to have a full knowledge of all the factories in their area, of what was going on there, of why they were working short time, and whether it was due to lack of capital, out-of-date machinery, shortage of markets or to the absence of the necessary skilled labour. It may be said that the last is not a very likely thing to occur, but our industry is changing its form, and science and technique are more and more dominating the production of articles.
Take one example, perhaps a rather sensitive one at the present time, the manufacture of artificial silk. That is very largely a matter of technical skill. Despite the fact that there are an enormous number of men out of work at the present time, the output of our factories at no time is able to keep pace with the demand. Messrs. Courtauld have to ration their customers. Owing to the necessity of getting the necessary skilled labour trained for the work, it is not possible to supply the demand. This is the state of affairs at the very time when there are all these hundreds of men lined kip at the Employment Exchanges seeking work. The Employment Exchange organisation has no machinery for training the necessary skilled labour, but it might use the good offices of the Board of Education and co-operate with where there is a shortage of skilled labour. It should be their business to train the men and make them efficient, and, if it is capital that is required, to help the manufacturer concerned to find them useful employment.
First they must have the machinery. Instead of Employment Exchanges being run on the present lines, the Minister must apply his mind to reverting to the original idea of their founders, and make
the Employment Exchange the servant not only of the men who want to work but of the employers, bringing men willing to work into touch with employers who can find them useful employment. Then, of course, comes the very difficult problem of finding markets. Our markets are changing. The ordinary normal markets before the War have been largely disorganised or closed, and manufacturers have not been in the position to have the necessary knowledge to divert their plant to the new needs and requirements of the post-War world. More use should be made of the wonderful machinery that exists in our Consular Service. At present it is used merely to tabulate dull statistics which nobody reads. If it were used as a means for providing markets, if we could bring it into contact with those manufacturers who have lost their markets, we could do a considerable amount to revive our trade and industry.
I would say to the Minister that it is no use being passive. Somehow or other we have got to get our industry going. I hear that one of the great difficulties is that many of our factories are run on entirely independent and self-contained lines. Where there is a great number of unemployed the Government, instead of staying up at Whitehall doing nothing, should go down to the depressed districts, to the North of England, and see whether, by bringing the various parties concerned together, by improving their organisation by getting more co-operation between the miners and the mineowners and the shipbuilders, and so on, they could enable our manufacturers to meet the competition they have to face in the markets of the world.
In our Employment Exchanges we have a wonderful organisation. We know who are out of work and what trades they belong to, we know their history—they are all recorded in the card index, all the men who are out of work. Instead of sitting down and allowing those men to lose their industrial skill, the Government should realise that they can, by their machinery, do much to get them back into work—if they will only take the trouble to get a knowledge of the industries, go to the distressed industrial districts and become active instead of passive. I believe that something can be done on those lines to help our workers
to get back into the factories and again become producers. I do not believe we can solve our problems by providing relief works. We have got to realise that, while there will have to be individual effort, the State can act as a guide and director, and do much to assist our manufacturers to get back to their old industrial position.

Mr. R. S. HUDSON: I claim the indulgence of the Committee for a maiden effort. I am emboldened to make it by a feeling that the subject matter before us is one of vital importance to the nation, is and must be the main pre-occupation of those among us who endeavour to follow the Prime Minister's precept of keeping in close touch with our constituencies. I think the action of the Minister of Labour in issuing his now famous Circular of February, the proposals of the Government for a widows pension scheme, and perhaps also the unfortunate scene the other day in this House have had a cumulative and beneficial effect by concentrating and renewing the attention of the country on this problem. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Platting (Mr. Clynes), who opened this Debate, said that we were accustomed to look on the bright side of things. I am afraid we have perhaps been accustomed too long to look on the bright side of the employment problem, and people have rather got into the habit of reading unemployment statistics week by week, and hoping things would get better; but have failed to visualise the crushing burden this problem is casting upon industry and on the working classes. I feel, however, that now we have evidence of a growing determination to try and grapple with this problem.
If the Chancellor of the Exchequer had not been interrupted the other day, I believe he was going to indicate the date on which he hoped to see the Unemployment Insurance Fund again made solvent, so that we might reduce the employers' and workmen's contributions to the original level of 6d. I have been tremendously impressed, in talking to workmen and employers, by the feeling there is among them that, until their contribution can be reduced to 6d., the burden of the widows' pension scheme will not be easy for them to bear. On these benches we all welcomed this scheme as a beneficial one to the working classes which is long overdue. It is
because of my desire to see the widows' pension scheme take its place in the ordinary economic life of the country, that I want to see its path made as easy as possible. I think the problem goes really beyond one of how or on what date the Unemployment Insurance Fund is to be made solvent. The problem is psychological as well. I believe that the efforts, both of working men and of employers, are being hampered at the present moment by the fact that they read that despite their best endeavours there are still over 1,100,000 persons unemployed. What we really have got to do is to reduce the weekly figures of unemployment.
There are, I know, a large number of persons who say, "Abolish the dole, and all will be well." But I think such advice finds, and rightly finds, no responsive echo among the great majority of those who sit in this House. The dole is not the ideal slay of dealing with this problem, as the right hon. Gentleman has already admitted. It has been admitted that the undue continuance of the dole tends in a large number of cases to demoralise the recipients. I think many hon. Members on the benches opposite will admit that, and even if some of them do not find it possible to do so publicly, I am certain the wives and daughters of their constituents are among the most eager to find some substitute which will give work to their men folk. It seems to me that, quite apart from moral grounds, merely to throw men off the insurance fund, in order to put the burden on to the local boards of guardians is not the right way of going about it.
This is one of the main criticisms to be levelled against the famous Circular 1183. The effect on one union in my constituency alone has been to increase the local burden by £2.000 a year. If that be the effect of cutting down numbers by I per cent., what would he the effect of 51 per cent. in October next, if no alternative be elaborated in the meantime? The burden of the rates on one colliery I know already approaches the total cost of management supervision and direction, while the charge for national insurance, compensation, and betterment in the same colliery amounts to over Is. 4d. per ton in the same way the burden of the rates on another industry in my constituency, namely iron ore mining, is equally crushing, being as it is over
three times what it was before the War, with the result that the mines cannot be worked at a cost which can compete with foreign ores, and to-day the men are, I am sorry to say, being continually discharged, although the mines are the richest in the world.
Moreover, to lighten the burden on the Insurance Fund by throwing it on the rates, has the well-known drawback of still further handicapping those very areas and industries which are most in need of assistance, and which are suffering from the greatest measure of unemployment. There may be, and probably are, numbers of cases of persons drawing benefits who are not entitled to them, and which they were not originally intended to receive. But when you make full allowance for all cases like that, I do not think they amount to 10 per cent., or even 5 per cent., of the total. Even if you make allowance for such cases, the total of the unemployed is well above 1,000,000, and you still have before you the problem of how to bring about the solvency of that Fund, in order to enable us to lighten the burden of widows' pensions.
The scheme associated with the right hon. Baronet the Member for Carmarthen (Sir A. Mond) is, I believe, under the careful consideration of the Government, but even that has its drawbacks, and it appears to me to be open to the objection that, once started, it may prove impracticable to stop it. It is also very difficult to determine within what limits it should be applied. If, however, it is decided to adopt it, I would like to put in a plea for its extension to the iron ore industry, with a view to assistance being given towards the accumulation on the surface of banks of ore, against the day when we hope a demand will again arise. I believe that would be an economic step, and would help materially to reduce unemployment in certain areas where it is exceptionally rife.
This leads me to a suggestion to which I would venture to call the special attention of the Minister of Labour and his colleague the Minister of Agriculture. There is no doubt that, taken as a, whole, the drainage of our agricultural areas has very materially deteriorated since the beginning of the century, and over large areas the productivity of the land so affected is seriously suffering. We were told the other day that over 300,000 men under 30
years of age were in receipt of unemployment benefit. I would suggest that work could be found for large numbers of these men during the two next critical years on afforestation and drainage schemes. I am aware that there are innumerable practical difficulties. There is the burning question of who is to benefit by the improvements made, and there is also the question of securing accommodation. I believe, however, that if a scheme were adopted on a sufficiently wide scale these difficulties would not he insuperable, and I am convinced that the benefit to be secured by the country would more than counter-balance them. On account of continued unemployment, many of these men are daily, through no fault of their own, becoming less fit physically and mentally to take their proper place in the industries of the country and in the national work of the nation.
I should hope to see, as the result of more than two years' work in the open, a desire on the part of many of these men to settle permanently in the country, and perhaps among some a readiness, at all events a fitness, to take up life in our Dominions overseas. In this way you might make the Insurance Fund solvent, without incurring any very much greater expense than you are incurring now by keeping people doing nothing. If by these and any other bold schemes we can reduce the figures of unemployment to 700,000 or 800,000, the burden of widows' pensions would be unnoticeable, the Government would receive the support of the nation, and would have earned the undying gratitude of that large body of women and children in the country who are suffering so acutely to-day from the misery and despair of seeing their men folk without proper employment.

Mr. WHITELEY: May I be allowed to congratulate the hon. Member for White-haven (Mr. R. Hudson) on his maiden effort, and to thank him for the sentiments he has expressed, particularly with regard to the working classes of this country. I am quite sure that, had the Chancellor of Exchequer come along a fortnight ago with similar sentiments, there would have been no disturbance in this House. I find myself unable to accept the statement of the Chancellor of Exchequer this afternoon as being a
satisfactory explanation of the statement that he made a fortnight ago to-day, because one has to remember that he was dealing with the process whereby the Government of the day could reduce the number of unemployed persons in this country to 800,000, and he was looking round to find where he could place the responsibility for the Government not being able to get down to that figure. Naturally, he did not want to blame the Government of which he is a member; and he naturally did not want to blame private enterprise, who cannot run industry in this country except they have a certain number of unemployed persons. Therefore, the only people that he could blame were the workers of this country and, in spite of the fact that he has now endeavoured to insert a new word, we who were sitting here and heard that statement know very well that it was well rehearsed, and was intended to be a statement attacking the working class of this country in a general sense. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has been claiming that he was responsible for bringing the Unemployment Insurance Act on to the Statute Book.

Sir CLEMENT KINLOCH-COOKE: On a point of Order. Is the hon. Member entitled to impute motives to right hon. and hon. Members?

The CHAIRMAN: I have frequently known it.

Mr. WHITELEY: The Chancellor of the Exchequer claimed to-day, as he did a fortnight ago, that he was responsible for bringing to the Statute Book the Unemployment Insurance Act, and he rather prided himself on the fact that he had been responsible in a large measure for creating the system of Employment Exchanges in this country. As a result of his statement a fortnight ago, I have been looking back in the records, and I find that in May, 1909 there was a Motion before the House of Commons dealing with the Report of the Poor Law Commission on Unemployment, and the present Chancellor of the Exchequer, who was then President of the Board of Trade, took the opportunity on that occasion to inform the House of Commons that he intended on the following day to introduce a Measure to bring Employment Exchanges into existence in this country. He further pointed out that it was essentially a matter for the Board of
Trade to concern itself with the organisation of industry, so far as the Government could properly concern itself with the organisation of industry, and he showed to the House of Commons that Employment Exchanges were the first essential step which should be taken in coping with the problem of poverty and unemployment.
He went on to point out to the House that, by a system of Employment Exchanges, organised as he intended to organise them, it would be possible to mobilise the labour of this country and to link up every town and village in the country so as to get to know what actual vacancies there were in the country, and prevent working men being sent from pillar to post in search of work which they probably knew was not there. He was going so to mobilise labour and to link up his Employment Exchange system that what would happen in the future would be that a man who was unemployed would be told that there was a job fitted for him, and he would be asked to go to that job without any further trouble. The Chancellor of the Exchequer is bound to realise that that system has not materialised as he expected it would. His speech in the House of Commons on that occasion gave great encouragement to the workers of this country that in the future they would be saved much aimless wandering from town to town and from village to village in search of work; but, instead of the right hon. Gentleman coming to the House and admitting frankly and honestly that the Employment Exchanges had not fulfilled the hopes that he had, or that the industrial system of the country was being made more chaotic day by day because of the failure of private enterprise to give its quota in the same proportion as was being asked of the workers, in order to bring industry back to a true economic position—instead of pointing out these things, he comes along and says the present unemployment figures are too large, and that the responsibility for that rests upon a tremendous number of malingerers. As a matter of fact, the Chancellor of the Exchequer to-day said that he was inundated with information regarding this problem. I am only sorry that he had not the ordinary common decency
towards the House of Commons to present that information to the Committee.
Let us see what the Ministry of Labour themselves say with regard to this problem. The Ministry of Labour have issued information co this House pointing out that during the whole of the year 1924 there were 1,913 prosecutions, that there were 1,590 convictions, that 188 persons were bound over, and that 135 cases were dismissed. I have been making very careful inquiries during the last fortnight with regard to the situation in the North of England, and particularly with regard to my own Division, and I find that in my own Division, up to some few days ago, there were 3,661 persons who were in receipt of unemployment benefit, and that during the whole period since 1921, when there has been depression in the mining industry, there have only been three prosecutions in the whole of my area. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour himself stated to the House on the 7th May, the clay following that on which these figures were issued, that the proportion which the number of prosecutions bore to the number of persons claiming benefit during the year was 055 per cent., which shows that one of the things about which the Government have to be very careful is that they do not concentrate on using the administration of the Unemployment Insurance Act for the purpose of attacking genuinely unemployed persons who are receiving that to which they are entitled, but that they ought rather to concentrate on seeing that the Employment Exchanges are used for the purpose for which they were brought into being, namely, for collecting the vacancies in the country in such a manner as to prevent men having to travel aimlessly about, as they are doing to-day, and being directed by the Employment Exchanges to go to places where they find that the work is absolutely different from what they were told it was.
I have a case of some constituents of my own who were informed by the Employment Exchange that there were vacancies at a colliery near Barnsley, owned by the Old Silkstone Colliery Company, Limited, where 20 coal-getters were wanted. They had to be fully experienced men used to coal seams of be-
tween 2 feet and 5 feet; they had to be used to pillar and stall work, they must be of good physique and free from disability. They were told that it would be a permanent job, and that they would be paid at the rate of 14s. to 15s. per shift of seven hours for six shifts per week. These men in my area thought they had found a real gold mine. They were not desirous of continuing to receive unemployment benefit, but were anxious for work. Eight men were selected from that area, particulars of their qualifications and experience were submitted to and accepted by the employers, and the men travelled to Barnsley from Dunston-on-Tyne on the 21st October. The particulars were presented to the employers by the Employment Exchange giving the character and everything else regarding these men, to show that they were fit and proper persons to be employed in this kind of work. Moreover, they were told that houses would be available—that four were being completed each week. When they got there, however, they found that no houses were available, but the manager of the Employment Exchange gave them a list of lodgings. The men went from door to door to inquire whether they could be taken in, and all the reply they could get was that in two instances one of them could be taken in, but that they would have to board themselves, which was exceedingly unsatisfactory from the men's point of view.
When they vent to work at this wonderful colliery, they only received per day, not 15s., and, because they could not keep two homes going on 5s. a day, they were compelled to return home; and, as the Employment Exchange refused to give them their return fares, they were compelled to walk all the way from Barnsley to Dunston-on-Tyne. One of the things that I desire to point out is that the people connected with the Employment Exchanges, apparently do not take any notice of the miners' officials in connection with these vacancies. I have a letter here from Mr. Herbert Smith, who is the President of the Yorkshire Miners, and also President of the Miners' Federation. It is dated the 24th October, and is in reply to an inquiry from our local secretary. He says:
I should think it is one of the worst collieries for wages in the South Yorkshire area. We had the Labour Exchange man up yesterday, who informed us that he had
some men sent down from your county to Barnsley. He came to ask us what we thought about it. We told him we could not recommend any of our men to go there, and we were hoping before long to have an organised branch strong enough to resist the low wades paid by that colliery when men met with difficulties in their working places".
In spite of that information from the President of the Miners' Federation, the officials of the Employment Exchanges allow these men to go to Barnsley, knowing that the conditions are not in keeping with the information they have received from the employer. We say that that is not the right way to treat men who are genuinely anxious to work, if work can be found for them in any part of this country.
Then, of course, I have been very interested in the statements one has seen in the Press as to how we can get the unemployment figure down to 800,000. That is the great object of the Government of the day. Let us examine what processes they have in operation. Firstly, they refuse extended benefit to men who are not normally insurable. I do not quite know the exact category in which these men would come, but the Minister of Labour, when he replies, will probably give us some idea. Then they say that extended benefit is refused because insurable employment is not likely to be available in normal times; and a third reason is that extended benefit is not paid because a reasonable period of insured employment has not been worked during the last two years. We have hundreds and thousands of men who have not been able to work during the last two years, and who have been cut off from unemployment benefit under this Clause. Then the further statement is made that they are not making reasonable efforts to find suitable employment or are unwilling to accept such employment. Here we have cases where men have accepted employment which has not been in keeping with the ordinary decent standard of life. It does not enable them to keep themselves in ordinary decency.
Under this head, between the 1st August, 1924, and the 9th March, 1925, 196,087 people were cut off from benefit under the Unemployment Insurance Act, and the Government have other avenues whereby they can avoid paying benefit to people who are out of work. As a matter
of fact, if the owners ask the men, after they have given them notice, and while the notices are running, to agree to a reduction in their wages—which in most cases is an absolutely unreasonable reduction—then those men are prevented from getting unemployment benefit because it is called a trade dispute. In collieries where, in some few instances, men have thought they were entitled to an increase of wages, and the manager has refused to give them any increase or to consider their claim, again you have what is called a trade dispute, and the men do not receive unemployment benefit. Again, in the case of colliery companies, such as there are in Durham to-day, who are trying to break through county arrangements on the question of hours, all they have to do is to call it a trade dispute, and the Umpire at the Industrial Court cuts our men out because it has been called a trade dispute by the employer.
We have thousands of cases of that kind in the County of Durham, of men who have never received a penny from the Unemployment Fund, although they have contributed to it ever since they came under it. We say that, rather than do that kind of thing, it would be far better for the Government to begin to organise industry in this country in a better sense than they have ever attempted in the past. Rather than that a responsible Minister should come down to the House of Commons and declare that the workers of this country are becoming involved in a sort of general habit of endeavouring to qualify for un- employment benefit, he should see to it that every effort is being put forward by his Government to create such a situation that our men, who are not responsible for unemployment, but who are anxious to work, may have some work created for the purpose of finding them employment. When the right hon. Gentleman made that statement, there came before one's mind men with whom one had gone to school, with whom one commenced to work in the same mine, with whom one grew up into manhood. Those men, with many of whom I have talked during the last two or three weeks, have been unable to secure employment during the last 21 years, although they have made every effort. They have tramped every village and town in the counties in which they lived, they have in sorted advertise
ments from time to time, and still they have failed to secure employment; and it is a very severe thing to put them in the category of malingerers who are desiring to draw unemployment benefit rather than seek work.
I met in the Lobby of this House last night three young men from my own constituency who have been out of work for over 10 months. They have absolutely failed to secure work in this country, and they left this morning from Tilbury Docks for Australia. They told me last night that, rather than stay in this country and receive unemployment benefit, they were going out there, not because they had work to go to, but because they thought they might find an opening in some other country, as everything seems to be going wrong in the old country. One of those men, just 18 months ago, was presented to the King of this country in order to receive a medal for bravery in the mine. We are simply, by our present Employment Exchange system, and by the decisions in our Industrial Courts, putting the screw on from every point of view, and we are driving the best of our manhood out of the country—the very type of men that we ought to be keeping in the country. I say that the working classes of this country have no need to be ashamed of their past record. They have made a great contribution to the national wealth. They were considered fellow-citizens during the days of war. They were called fellow-citizens by right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite in the big public meetings that we had when the country was going through difficulties and times of distress. They were asked as fellow-citizens to come to the aid of their country, and they did so. But now, when they are passing through times of difficulty and distress, they are not called fellow-citizens, but are told in this House that they are men capable of developing the habit of qualifying for insurance benefit rather than seeking work. We repudiate that statement. We say that our class have given a real contribution to this nation's good, and will continue to do so and we urge upon the Government, in their turn, to give the same kind of contribution.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I do not pro pose to deal, except in a few sentences with the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I am very glad that he
had an opportunity to-day of developing his argument more fully, but I think it was very effectively dealt with, if I may say so, by the hon. Member for Blaydon (Mr. Whiteley), by irrefutable figures and statements; and also, if I may say so, by inference from the whole tone and tenour of his argument, in the excellent maiden speech delivered by the hon. Member for Whitehaven (Mr. R. Hudson). The entire point and pith of his speech, and its whole direction, was a complete contradiction of the assumption of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, 1 think quite honestly, but I also think quite mistakenly, is under the impression that there is a perceptible number of people who could be taken off unemployment benefit because they have no right to he there. I think he is under the impression that he can reduce the figures by that means, and that he can utilise the saving for the purpose of financing his schemes. I think he is utterly wrong is inevitable that out of the 1,200,000 there must be some who, on the whole, ought not to have been there. There no class of whom that could not be said and the working classes are no more exempt than other classes—in fact, less so—from the charge of idling when they might to be at work. There are other classes against whom that charge would be very appropriate. But I do not think he will find that, on the whole, he will succeed in saving very much money to the Exchequer, and there is a real danger —the old danger of the parable—that he will root out the wheat when he is trying to get rid of the tares, and probably throw a great deal of the wheat into the furnace of discontent, and I do not think it is worth his while fixing his hopes upon that, or devoting his energy and his thought to it.
The problem is a much more serious one than that. It goes very much deeper, and I think the real danger we are under is that we have got into the habit of regarding the problem of unemployment as if it were due to temporary causes, and that the symptoms will pass away, and that all we have to do is to provide temporary remedies. I do not think anyone who looks at the prospects of trade and industry can honestly come to that conclusion. We are a very optimistic people.
All successful people are optimists, because they have the best reason for being optimists, and we are a very prosperous people. We have been the most prosperous people in the world, and that makes us optimistic, but I think our optimism has carried us a little too far. I have taken this view for some years. I think there are permanent causes which account for the depression in trade and that we ought to realise it. I have done my best at the expense of being called a pessimist. I agree with the hon. Member who spoke so well a short time ago, that a good deal of this is psychological, but I do not think you can improve trade by saying" all is well. Let us conceal the figures on unemployment, let us give the impression that things are getting on." I think we have got to a position where we must face the facts. I. have drawn attention to this once or twice before, but I will repeat it till I can get an answer from some Government as to what their idea is as to the outlook, and also as to how they are to deal with it.
May I put two or three facts which I think are pertinent. The first is that, owing to War and post-War conditions, other countries have been compelled to set up factories to provide goods which before the War they bought from us. That is one of the results of the exchanges. The deterioration of exchanges in European countries made it impossible for those countries to buy from us, whatever their will was. I had a good illustration of that a few weeks ago, when I met a very intelligent Portuguese gentleman, who said to me, "We were in the habit of buying certain goods from England, but our exchange got so bad that our people could not any longer pay for those goods. We have now been compelled to build factories. At first the goods turned out by those factories were very inferior, and had we been able to get your goods into our country at a reasonable price, and if our exchange had enabled us to pay for them, we should have bought your stuff. But our people now are beginning to learn how to do it. They are improving year by year, and there are factories set up all over the country employing thousands of people to provide the very material which formerly we bought from you. By-and-by our exchanges will be stabilised." Every European exchange will be stabilised at some
figure or other, sometimes in hundreds, sometimes in thousands, but it will be something which will represent a coin or a currency which will equalise matters. But by that time no Government, in Portugal will dare to face the prospect of those factories being closed down. They have far too many revolutions at present, in fact whenever there is any desire for a change of Government, it always begins in revolution. It takes less time than a general election very often, and as a matter of fact I believe it costs less in Portugal, and I do not believe there is very much more bloodshed. They dare not therefore face the closing don of the factories, and the result will be that when the exchanges are stabilised and when the population there can buy the goods at prices which would have the effect of closing them down, they will take steps at once to put up tariffs, which will make it impossible for us to get in. That condition of things you will find in practically every European country. You have it in France, in Germany and in other countries as well. That is a permanent factor that we have to take into account.
6.0 P.M
What is the other factor? Take the position of our shipping. Before the War we had 40 per cent. of the total shipping of the world, including steamers on the great lakes in America. We did not far from half the international trade of the, world. It was a great source of income. It was part of the invisible exports that enabled us to balance our accounts. The position last year was that we had just 30 per cent. of the shipping of the world. Owing to War conditions, or rather to the fears caused by the War and to post-War difficulties, nations that had no shipping before the War started building —France, Italy and the United States. That is a very serious factor when you come to deal with trade as a whole.
Everyone knows the position of coal. There is a disposition to treat that as if it were really a temporary difficulty. It is nothing of the kind. Everyone knows it, and we know it very well in South Wales more particularly, where they used to supply coal for the southern railways in France and for Italy. I am told they have closed down their offices in Cardiff from which they used to supply the coal. Someone gave me the
figure the other day that they used to supply something like 13,000,000 tons for that purpose. Now the French railways are largely electrified. The same thing applies to Italy, where we used, to supply coal. Italy could no longer pay for the coal. It was very expensive in the first years after the War, but, apart from that, there was the exchange difficulty. Whereas, formerly, 26 lire would represent a sovereign, now it has run up to about 116 or 117. In France, where 25 francs used to pay for £1, it has run up to over 90. They can no longer pay for these commodities and they have taken steps to dispense with them.
It is no use treating this as if it were simply a temporary incident that is going to pass away or that you can deal with it either by unemployment insurance or by relief work of any sort or kind. There is something fundamental here that has got to be faced, and the. House of Commons must face it, with the Government of the day. It shows what an amazing people we are. This is the fifth year of this state of things, and this is the condition of the House of Commons when we are discussing something that is vital for the very life of the country. We are taking it very calmly. That is because we have confidence that somehow or other it will come out right in the end.
May I point out another factor? I have called attention to this before. I know that great financial experts think it is an exaggeration, but I have never been able to get an answer. It is the effect of inflation upon the position of our competitors. The effect undoubtedly at first was in our favour, because it destroyed' their credit. They could not buy their raw material at the same price that', we could. I had some figures given me, and I put them to one or two experts as to whether they were correct or not, and they thought they might be approximately correct, that the effect on Germany at first was that whereas France was able to buy her iron ore at something like 14 francs, for the same quantity the Germans had to pay the equivalent of 42 francs for the raw material of their iron industry. That may he the case. I should not be a bit surprised, because last year even the best German firms were paying 40 per cent. accommodation for a short loan and some of them were paying even 100 per cent. to borrow money. But
that is passing away. They borrowed £40,000,000 at 7 per cent. It was oversubscribed—I forget how many times—and there is no doubt at all that it will be honoured. The amount at which they are borrowing money is coming down and down and down, and their deposits have gone up in the course of a single year—last year—from &£100,000,000, in their banks up to the equivalent of over £300,000,000. Therefore, they will be able to borrow at a lower rate of interest.
But this is what I am coming to. When they are able to do that there will be this position. All their municipal debt their National Debt for the War and most of their debt after the War has been wiped out. It has had this effect even with regard to property. I read an article by a very eminent German professor showing that before the War a workman paid something like, I think, 25 per cent. of his wages for his rent. The rent now represents 90—that is less than 1 per cent. of his wages.

Mr.KIRKWOOD: That is an intelligent country

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I am not at all sure that the hon. Member would like to see the working classes pass through the tremendous period of depression and want through which the Germans passed in order to attain that stage. The paper currency has been their jubilee. It has wiped out their debts.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: And they have no Army and no Navy.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: And no conscription. These are permanent factors that we have to face and we are dealing with the problem as if it were purely something temporary which was merely a matter of relief in one shape or another. What I want to know from the Government is, what is their view of the prospect? I may be taking too pessimistic a view, but I have taken it and stated it in the House for three years and up to the present I regret to say I have been correct in that respect. Experts always told me when I sat on that bench, "wait for six months and you will get a change." They told me in 1920 and in 1921 the same thing. I have no doubt they told the succeeding Governments: "All you have to do is to wait a few more months and you will get a change."
Honestly, I cannot see how you are going to overcome these factors unless there is some determination by the nation as a whole to grip the problem and face it and deal with it as we dealt with the problems of the War, with courage, with initiative and, above all, without fear of departing from the ordinary channels. The thing that saved us in the War was that we were not afraid of doing something that had never been done before, and you will never get away from it. There have been three Governments since I was a member of a Government. We have had Trade Facilities, Unemployment Insurance, Export Credits, great road schemes, but there has not been a single new idea since then. Honestly, if I had been there another three years, I should have learned something new. I am sick of this slavish adhesion to the Coalition policy. You have had three Governments—a Conservative Government (a diluted one), a Labour Government, and now an undiluted Conservative Government. The right hon. Gentleman does not supply the element in dilution that I did. All you get is this sort of copying of Coalition ideas, as if they were copperplate. Really it is time the Government should say, "These are permanent factors. Let us face them. We will ask the House of Commons to take certain lines."
If I may refer again to a very instructive speech, I was very glad to hear from the hon. Gentleman the Member for Whitehaven (Mr. R. S. Hudson) that he was not afraid of facing something new. He said, "Drain the land." That is a new idea[Laughter.]I do not mean little wash-pot schemes, and the hon. Member did not mean anything of the kind. He meant something on a bigger scale. Let us see what happened in 1815, when we had to face conditions, not quite as bad, but still very bad, after a prolonged period of war—nothing like as exhausting as the war we have gone through, nothing like as devastating and destructive, but still just enough to give us some idea of the character of the problem. There we were faced with the same change in the world's condition, but there there was new machinery, there were new processes which cheapened manufacture and enabled those who could not buy at the old prices to buy at the cheaper ones. That was a new thing.
There is electricity now that something might be done with. In those days the population were moved practically from one form of industry to another. It was badly done. It was very destructive. It was a moving from the villages to the towns, where they were huddled together and put into barracks which have since become slums. That is what happened then. Is it not possible to think out the problem? Let as take a survey of the assets of this country, of its possibilities, and what can be done. I do not mean in a party sense, by attacking any class of property owners or any other class, but by acting together on an honest, fearless survey, and determining what to do. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to tell me what he thinks of the night from his watch-tower, and what he thinks is going to happen? Does he see any hopes? If so, what are they? There is a great inquiry into trade. Has it reported? Does he think that things are still in a very doubtful and dangerous condition? He is there with a great majority behind him, and I believe a courageous one if somebody were to lead them on the right path. I ask him what is his proposal.

The MINISTER of LABOUR(Sir Arthur Steel-Maitland): It is a most characteristic speech to which we have just listened from the right hon. Gentleman. We are told that there are lots of people here with courage, if anyone will lead them on the right path. We have not had one syllable from the right hon. Gentleman as to whether he has any idea whether there is a path at all.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I put forward my suggestions in the last Debate, which took place only a few weeks ago. I developed my suggestions then, and I did not, want to worry the House by repeating the same suggestions.

Sir A. STEEL-MA1TLAND: The right hon. Gentleman has accused us of following slavishly the projects of the Coalition Government to a degree which, I think, is repellent, almost, to himself. I am not at all sure when I now come to consider his speech, and when I consider the projects of the Coalition Government —of which, for a short time, I was a humble Member, while he was at the head of it—that I cannot begin to trace something of the difference which is due to
elements of the Coalition Government which are no longer in this Government, as distinguished from the elements which are still here, and which were in the Government with the right hon. Gentleman. He has accused us of following continuously along the same lines. I seem to remember the different kind of influence, which, clearly, is not in this Government now, judging from his own speech, but which was observable in the Coalition Government, and that was the element of great oscillation from one extreme quickly to another. There was the great oscillation towards nationalisation. Hon. Members opposite will remember that question. [HON. MEMBERS "The Chancellor of the Exchequer ! "] There were oscillations in other respects as well. If the accusation against us to-day is that we are going too steadily along the same lines, it seems clear where the oscillating influence has been. I am not at all sure whether the country would the better at the moment for having violent swings of the pendulum in regard to policy every few months.
I am ready to deal with the questions to which the right hon. Gentleman has directed our attention. He went back to 1815, He said that then, at any rate, there was a new development which enabled the country to get over the difficulties in which it found itself after the Napoleonic wars. It is perfectly true that there was a development which happened after those wars. But at the present time there is no sign of any departure so great in proportionate effect in this country. There is, however, one departure and that is in the realm of electricity. I admit that it was a pet project of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the late Government, as it has been with us in this. Anyone may ask me in this House, "How far have you gone?" The answer is—I do not want to anticipate anything that the Minister of Transport may say—that the Government have pushed ahead with it as hard as it could be pushed ahead. You cannot get—I speak from my own business experience—a scheme of a tenth-part of its magnitude in ordinary business life brought to fruition without many months, and very often years, of elaboration. Consequently, however hard it is pushed, it has been absolutely impossible
to get to the point of fruition as quickly as anyone in this House would wish. If anyone asks me about the scheme to-day, my answer is that we are not yet in a position to lay it before the House; but I trust, without question, that it may be so laid before the autumn.
The right hon. Gentleman asked me about some matters which he thinks are permanent factors. I can give him an opinion as to how far they are permanent and how far they are not. The first is the question of shipbuilding. One reason for the extraordinary depression in the shipbuilding trade is, of course, the fact that shipbuilding was active before and during the War, but when the War ended the whole world was left, not with a shortage but with a surplus of the actual tonnage required for carrying the shipping of the day. The consequence is that shipping rates in the market have gone down. New shipbuilding has been stagnant. It is only as existing ships become obsolete and worn out that there will be any revival of shipbuilding in the world as a whole, and the share of it which this country will get depends on its competitive power in manufacture. With that I will deal in a moment. To this extent, however, there is a permanent difficulty in the matter' of shipbuilding, and that is that with the decrease in the navies of the world, there is no question hut that the constructive capacity of this country, when you take both Admiralty building and ordinary commercial shipbuilding, is probably in excess of what the requirements will be, even in times of active trade, for many years to come.
I will now take the case of coal. The chief reason why this year the figures for unemployment have remained so high, has been the condition of the coal trade. The ordinary fall that there would have been, and a fall to a figure at least as low as last year, has been set off by one main cause, and that is the great extent of unemployment in the coal trade, as compared with what it was last year. Of the numbers of unemployed at this moment over 100,000 are due to the increase in unemployment in the coal mining industry alone. That in itself would practically make all the difference, even if there was nothing else, between last year's figures and this.

Mr. HARTSHORN: Will the right hon. Gentleman give the figures for the coal mining industry for a period of this year, and the corresponding period last year?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: Yes. The figures of unemployment on the 28th April last year in the coal mining industry were 24,843. This year on the 27th April, the figure was 139,375. That is a difference of 115,000 which, when you make allowances for the changes caused by the Unemployment Act of last year, accounts in itself for practically the whole difference in unemployment between this year and last year. It is possible that you may find in certain lines a replacement of coal by oil for the propulsion of boats, and engines of similar kind in other ways, but I do not think that that in any way accounts for the great amount of unemployment in the coal mining trade. Nor does it necessarily mean that in future that factor alone, with the normal expansion in propulsive power that will be required, means greater unemployment in normal times. What happens at this moment is that we are being undersold in neutral markets by Germany, in Italy largely, and I believe in the Argentine, too. I was not prepared for dealing with this point, and I am speaking from memory, but I think my facts are correct. I believe that if 2s. 6d. a ton could he cut off the cost of coal in this country we could -recover most of the markets that we have lost.
Now I come to the question of inflation. I had an opportunity while the inflation was proceeding in Germany of seeing the effects of it from inside. While the old mark was going steadily downwards, what happened was, that the industrialists in Germany, in many cases, had a large volume of trade. Their increased power of competition was brought about because the real wages of the workmen were so greatly reduced since the paper marks which they received on the day when wages were paid were worth only a fraction of what they were when the rate of the wages was fixed. That was largely the case while inflation was going on in Germany. You got a rate of wages fixed on one day, but by the time the wages had to be paid the value of the paper mark had altered. For that reason, and for similar reasons, it followed that, for the time being, during the period of
inflation their power of competition was enormously increased in underselling us.
After that, what happened am giving my own experience from inside, because I saw it happen. In many cases, in order to put profits where they might retain their value, they were largely invested in new plant, new buildings, and in bringing machinery up to date for future competition, because the new plant and the new building would retain their value after the period of inflation was over. It was largely for that reason that the financial stringency became so acute. They never paid as much as 40 per cent. for a long period of time, but, at any rate, the money stringency was great and I can give the Committee an instance which came within my own knowledge. A business which had dealings with some of the great German firms found that the Germans had difficulty in finding cash to make purchases. It was a question whether money could be lent to them. One of the greatest firms in Germany had a proposition put to them by a British firm, who said, "We are willing, in view of your standing, to lend you money." They calculated the English Bank Rate and offered to lend at 6 or 7 per cent. The answer from the Germans was, "6 per cent. Do you mean 6 per cent. a month?" Obviously, that was an impossible rate, but it shows what they considered was a possible request at a period of the greatest stringency. That period passed. What has been left behind? After the mark was standardised, you got a level of wages there very much below the ordinary British level, and conditions below the British level as well. That is the state of affairs, and conditions can only gradually go back to the state in which they were before. That is the only way, so far as I can see, in which inflation may mean that competition against us is increased, because otherwise, in the absence of a standardisation of the currency, internal prices tend to equate with external prices, and the advantage of competition which inflation has given tends to die away.

Miss WILKINSON: Is the reduction of wages in Germany not due to the Reparation payments?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: At this moment, if asked, I would say that reparation has hardly had any effect on wages in Germany at present. I have been tracing what I have seen before 1 became a member of the Government, because I had the opportunity of seeing what was going on in Germany at the time, and it does mean this that, for the time being, we have to face industrial conditions abroad which are on a lower level from the point of view of the workers than they are in this country. That is what we really have to face. That is the one result of inflation against us, and I think that it is only one of any degree of permanency.
I am asked in this case what the Government would suggest, and if they have any scheme. That is the question which is always put, and I have been asked by hon. Members opposite why it is that Conservative Members accused the last Government of never bringing forward their schemes when they came into power. I do not want to make the same old answer too platitudinously, but I remember a speech by the right hon. Member for Platting (Mr. Clynes) during the Election in which he said he knew "scores of profitable undertakings" in which people could be set to work. I remember another speech by the right hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas) in which he made an almost precisely similar statement in that Election, and, again, I remember the Election address of the right hon. Member for Seaham (Mr. Webb), which I read with the greatest interest, and in which he said:
For the unemployed we urge immediate employment, nothing more and nothing less. And it can be done. We ask for an immediate putting in hand at the expense of national funds, but with the co-operation of local authorities, not of little bits of work only, but here and now this very winter of all the numerous and varied enterprises of public utility. The unemployed, including practically all the ex-service men in need, can be directly set to work on them by hundreds of thousands".
That was at the end of 1923. That was not what they did in the following year. With all deference to the late Chancellor of the Exchequer, they had not the excuse that they did not know the schemes. They had got all those schemes carefully prepared beforehand, or so we were told by the right hon. Gentleman
opposite. They had been maturing, so to speak, in bond for at least two years before that. Consequently, if I am asked by them what we have done, I say that that sort of criticism from the right hon. Gentleman leaves me quite unmoved. The fact is that schemes of that sort—and I have the figures if the right hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Snowden) wishes them—are a mere palliative and nothing else, and for that reason we have never pretended that we have any remedy for unemployment along those lines. I may quote from just one other of the Election addresses:
The provision of work by the State and the civic councils is at best a palliative and not a cure.
Again
I do not pretend to see any quick, easy and complete cure for unemployment.
That is what I personally said in my Election addresses because it is impossible to pretend to the people in this country that there is any quick and easy cure, which can reduce unemployment to a very large extent. I can, if hon. Members wish it, go through the different schemes that there have been—the Unemployment Grants Committee, to which the right hon. Gentleman referred, afforestation, export credits, trade facilities, and all the rest. We have got the figures. From one year to another those figures gradually increase, but it is humanly impossible, with any of those, to do more than touch the fringe of the unemployment question. Therefore, when somebody asks me, as the hon. Member for West Middlesbrough (Mr. T. Thomson) does with patient persistence in his questions, what new schemes can be set on foot, my answer is that there are not the schemes to set up, and therefore they cannot be set up.

Mr. TREVELYAN THOMSON: As the right hon. Gentleman has referred to me, may I say that the municipal corporation has a scheme to put in hand which the Government will not finance?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: We could always do lots of things if the other person would foot the whole bill. What is clear is that whether it is a municipality or a Government that foots the bill, you do not get the money from any Fortunatus purse, but, in any case, it has got to be paid for by the country. The
question is whether in the end you get a corresponding value for your money in the shape of a remedy for or an alleviation of unemployment. All these schemes are mere palliatives apart from electricity. It is electricity alone which differs from any of the schemes that have been proposed and which could conceivably be undertaken. That should pay for itself and be economically justifiable; it should he a good economic proposition because it brings the country as a whole up to date and enables it more effectively to compete with other countries. There is no other scheme of that kind.
One or two suggestions have been made in the course of the Debate, one by the right hon. Gentleman, who says that we ought to increase our trade with Russia. I can assure him that I am as anxious to increase our trade with Russia as with any other country. Nothing is being done to stop trade with Russia, but under no Government could a large trade with Russia be done at the present moment while the Russian Government, through one organ, controls the whole of the export and import trade. It has got to go through the neck of that bottle. It is a question, How are you going to increase the flow? So far as the figures on that subject go, our trade with Russia, which used to be much less than the German trade before the War—and Russia is the natural outlet for Germany to a greater extent than for this country—has increased to a greater extent than the German trade, and it has done so since the right hon. Gentleman quitted office.

Lieut.Commander KENWORTHY: rose—

HON. MEMBERS: Order!

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Captain FitzRoy): The right hon. Gentleman has given way repeatedly.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: On a point of Order. I have been in four Parliaments in this House, and I represent a constituency which—

Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: You have not behaved well.

Lieut.Commander KENWORTHY: have behaved as well as the hon. And gallant Gentleman. The right hon. Gentleman has asked, can we show how he can do more in certain directions? Is
it not usual for a Minister to give way
when he is asked? I ask you to protect me in this matter. I ask whether I have not the right in Committee of Supply to put a question to a Minister?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Labour has given way on several occasions during the course of his speech.

Lieut.CommanderKENWORTHY: Not to me

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: It is impossible for him to pursue his argument if he is interrupted constantly.

Lieut.-CommanderKENWORTHY: But I think that, there is a constitutional point here. We are voting Supply for a Government Department.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: There is no constitutional point at all.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I can assure the hon. and gallant Member that I am always anxious to hear him on the subject of Russia. I do not intend any discourtesy to him, but he will have his chance of speaking afterwards, and in order to do justice to his points he will have to develop them.

Mr. MAXTON: Why not have export credits for Russia?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: Export credits for Russia are withheld because of the person to whom the credit is given. I can only give exactly the same answer as that which I gave to Mr. Rakovsky when he was here, that if they allowed business with Russia to be done in the usual way in which it is done with other countries, with the same certainty of a return, I believe that there would be, first of all, a trickle and then a. flow, and then you would get a volume of trade with Russia greater than in any other possible way.
The reason why I said that so far electricity is the only scheme, is because there is none other which is justifiable in itself and in itself alone. But I am convinced that the present situation is not by any means a permanent and an incurable setback, as the right hon. Gentleman, I think, believes. In that I differ from him. I do not think that the setback is permanent and incurable. I think that it is largely due to a dislocation in British trade itself. From some quarters on the benches opposite, when I made a similar remark
before, hon. Members asked, "What is your remedy" I said then, and I say it again, that my remedy is a simple one, that industrialists, masters and men, should get together.

Mr. DUNCAN: They are meeting every day.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: Every person who is really trying to get to the bottom of this question knows quite well that on both sides there are points to be brought forward in order to make the competitive power of British industries a great deal higher than it is to-day. As the right hon. Gentleman has said, our industries have really to face the facts and to get clown to these competition points. To my mind, the State can make itself useful, in the first place, by trying, where the parties are not already together—as they are in some of the big industries now—to bring them together, or, if there is a break-off through some accident—as there was in the engineering trade for the moment—to see if we cannot bring the parties together again. Then, if an industry says, "Because foreign conditions are of the kind outlined, we want you to try and see if you cannot bring conditions more into line," then we are ready, in response, to go forward and see how the Government can co-operate in doing so, provided that we really take care not to add to the difficulties of British industry. I have been told that that is a negative policy. It is not a negative policy for a moment.

Mr. DUNCAN: It is not a policy at all.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: It is a perfectly distinct policy.

Mr. DUNCAN: I think I am justified in interrupting the right hon. Gentleman, and if hon. Members will give me an opportunity, I will show that that is so. I want to say to the Minister that he knows just as well as I do, that in the engineering, the shipbuilding and all these great trades the men have been meeting the masters for 18 months on end.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I know quite well that they have been meeting, and I know quite well that they are only just getting to grips with the real, hard and solid facts. That is perfectly true. Our policy is not a negative policy.
[Interruption.]Members may differ from me, but they know quite well that I am really trying to deal with the merits of the case, and, what is more, if their opinion is different from mine, that it is a perfectly honest difference of opinion. I am stating what I am quite convinced about in my own mind. The country, during the years of the War and those just after the War has passed through, I will not call it a debauch, but a complete upset in ordinary manufacturing conditions, get the country going again. There are two ways of trying to deal with a situation like this. There is the kind of doctor who says, "I will give you a lightning cure, a stimulant." Such a pretended cure is no good in the long run. Or you can get the kind of doctor who will say," The only way by which you can get right is to get your constitution sound." The latter is the kind of treatment that should be adopted. There is no good in general industrial conferences simply to talk things over. The big trades must get to grips individually with the hard facts still further than at present, and when they have done that then will be the time to get the parties in more than one trade to meet together. I have no doubt that when that is done a good deal of what look to-day like permanent disadvantages, will not be found to be permanent, but transitory. I agree that you have to get a resuscitation also in some of the big consuming neutral markets of the world.
Let me pass to another quite distinct point on which I have been asked questions. Let me pass from unemployment to the administration of the Insurance Acts. I shall deal with the question briefly, but not out of any discourtesy. I have been in my present office for six months, and I have had what I might call the heavy artillery of the extremists on both sides firing over my head the whole time, but fortunately the shells have mostly passed over my head. I get one type of extremist who tells me that the whole system is condemned as wrong. There are people who say, "Abolish the dole altogether." Others say," It has been in fact a relief system, and it ought to be made a relief system." I have tried to carry on; I have tried not to be deflected, and I have continued to strive for the object which 1 set out to reach four or five months ago. I am trying more
and more to discriminate between the people who are entitled to get benefit and the people who are not, and also to get down to the real causes of the trouble. As to the extremists, I quite agree that there are some people who may imagine that there is a vast army of shirkers, and there are some who may imagine genuinely that there is nobody who ever wants to shirk at all. Let me put the common-sense point of view frankly to Members of the House, and I am sure that, politics apart, they will agree with me. I am sure that the great bulk of men are good fellows who want work, who are much happier in working if they can get work, and who do their best to obtain it. I am quite sure that that is true, and I am sure that the Chancellor of the Exchequer agrees with me.

Mr. STEPHEN: He did not say so.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: He is saying so now. Therefore, to that extent we are all agreed. I am sure that everyone on the opposite side of the House, as well as on this side, knows that there are some of every kind of persuasion. There is a certain proportion, and quite a very small number, who really try to get something for nothing if they get the chance. That is also quite clear in everyone's mind. An hon. Member, I think, accused the Chancellor of the Exchequer of saying that the great bulk of working men getting benefit were in the category of malingerers. My right hon. Friend did not say that[Interruption.]The vast number are good fellows who want work and the number of people who try to get the benefit without being entitled to it is quite small. But you do get also a fringe of people who under normal conditions are workers, who are happier when working, and yet who tend, when they see a man next door getting the benefit though he may not be entitled to it, to ask themselves: "Why should I not get a bit too?" The trouble with me in my own heart is the type of defect in cases of that kind. I am going to give hon. Members some of the types of reasons which make me troubled about some of the effects of the Act. I have here a letter sent to me as a Birmingham Member, from the branch of the Transport and General Workers' Union. It. refers to a perfectly proper official circular entitled" Rejection of claims for extended benefits on ground N.M.R.E." It is instructive to note that that official
circular was never issued in Birmingham or in that district. It was only issued provincially in Scotland. Therefore, it was quite clear that it was not on their own spontaneous initiative that it was dealt with in Birmingham. A paragraph in the letter states:
In the second place, the circular encourages men and women who are out of work, dreading the loss of the only money they are likely to receive, to tell the representatives on the Courts of Referees, that they have actually been to employers of labour asking for employment where they have not done so at all".
That is the sort of trouble that I have. I am giving only what has come into my hands in the last day or two. My next quotation is from the "Barrow Leader the official organ of the Barrow Labour party:
 Men are being struck off benefit wholesale, and in many cases it is their own fault. Under the new regulations the committees are forced to put down on the forms every place an applicant has called at during the last few days. Many men are stating that they have not been anywhere for two, three and four weeks. One man actually stated that he had applied at the shipyard last July. Men appearing before the Rota in future are advised to secure a copy of the 'Barrow Handbook' and to commit to memory the names of all works and tradesmen. When before the committee and under interrogation as to where you have been looking for work, just reel off all the places you can remember, and be careful to state that you applied as recently as the same day or the day before. If the Labour Exchange is so stupid as to demand this information, let it have it, hot and heavy.
Then it goes on—
Remember that the one that tells the best tale gets off the best. Surely your cross-word experience has benefited you somewhat. That is what the craze was intended for. Twig? Well, cheerio! See you again on Labour Day.
I have had views expressed on both sides. I have been told that I am inhuman, that I have been putting the screw on in every possible way. I think that there begin to be doubts on both sides. Therefore, I am going to take exactly the same action as I took over the Grocery Trade Board. When I came to the office, I found that the thing had been dragging along and was not cleared up. I said: "At any rate, I will try to clean up this matter." I have got an investigation going. After all that has passed, I am going to try to clean this matter up now.
Therefore, I am going to set up a Committee this autumn, or some time this year, in order to go right into the question of the conditions of grants, so as to see exactly what the effect is, and to get advice as to policy. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not now?"] I am not going to determine what time it will be. I am also going to introduce a Bill this summer. Otherwise, on 1st October, the strict Regulation under the existing Act as to 30 contributions will come into force. The improvement of trade has not warranted that.
7.0 P.M.
Therefore, I am going to introduce a Bill this Summer. But both as to the Bill and the time and personnel of the Committee, and with regard to the rest of it, I have not settled. I have been trying to get the matter cleared up before this afternoon's Debate. It was asked for earlier than normally would have been expected after the Estimates had been gone into by the Estimates Committee. Therefore, I am not ready yet with details, either as regards the Committee or the Bill. I propose to communicate details to the House as soon as I can. On the one hand, I am accused of being hard-hearted and inhuman—those are the words that have been used—and, on the other hand, lax. I cannot accuse myself of being either lax or inhuman. It is about the most difficult question to administer that there is. I think if any Member were in my place day by day, he would find it was neither an easy nor a pleasant task for anyone who tried to combine both his head and his heart in fulfilling his duty. The fact is that I get cases of hardship coming up to me day by day, which neither Members on this side nor Members opposite fully realise, and it is a hard task for the person who has to deal with them according to what he really thinks best for the community at large. As I sit there, and as I talk this matter over day by day with those at the office concerned with the administration, and think it over afterwards at night, I am quite clear in one thing. I know that I do not do good by yielding to the first natural, generous motive, any more than I should do by yielding to clamour. As it affects both the life and the industry of the country, it is too important to think of giving way to clamour. When I said what I did about the industry of the
country, I meant it from the bottom of my heart, and also about the insurance. The country has got to go through a painful time yet. I feel very much like a working man I know whose wife had to go through an extraordinarily painful and serious operation as her one chance of survival. It would have been much easier for him to say," Do not do it. Let us see if you cannot get better otherwise." His really difficult task was to say, "Go on. Get through with it, and bear up in the pain." From my point of view, to take that line, which is the line I have been taking, and I propose to take, is not really the less sympathetic, but the more sympathetic in reality, whether I am mistaken or not. Therefore, when people talk of "inhuman" or "lax," they are words which I do not think are applicable to the situation at all.

Mr. RAMSAY MacDONALD: 1 am sure the Committee has listened with most profound sympathy, especially to the last sentences of the right hon. Gentleman's statement, when, for a few minutes, he allowed himself to wear his heart upon his sleeve. It is a great pity that that very profound consideration which any Minister of Labour can very properly claim from this House did not animate those who sat opposite when his predecessor was in office. We started this Debate for two purposes. One, to find out how far the Chancellor of the Exchequer—I hasten lest the bird should escape—how far the extraordinary statement made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer the other day really represented the mind of the Government, and how far it did not. The second reason why we put this Vote down to-day was that we wished to know w hat the Minister of Labour was doing, and had done during that prolonged six months of office, because we knew perfectly well that if he had been sitting here and we there, he would have expected us during that very, very lengthy time to have completely cured the unemployment problem. On the first point, we have got full satisfaction. The Chancellor of the Exchequer made a statement; I do not know whether he wishes to qualify it or not. I hear he has been changing his attitude.

Mr. CHURCHILL: No, I have not.

Mr. MacDONALD: Pardon me, the right hon. Gentleman has. Whether the OFFICIAL REPORT and the report in the "Times" did his intentions injustice or not, I do not know. He says that the OFFICIAL REPORT and the report in the "Times," both of which I have had looked up, misrepresented him.

Mr. CHURCHILL: What I said was a "certain "tendency. That was the word I used—not "general." That is what I say. Moreover, I took the trouble to, examine the Press on the subject, very carefully, and there are a larger number of papers which had the version to which I adhere than give the opposite version. There was much confusion reigning at the time, through no fault of mine.

Mr. MacDONALD: I had no intention whatever of refusing to accept the right hon. Gentleman's word. I heard it myself There was no confusion reigning at that time. My recollection is that of the OFFICIAL REPORT and the "Times" report. I am prepared almost to take an oath under any conditions that the right hon. Gentleman cares to propose, that that was the word he used. As a matter of fact if he did not intend to use that word, and if he says so, I accept it without any reserve. But in justice to my hon. Friends behind me, if that other word had been used, a good deal of the excuse for what happened as the result would have been removed. What the right hon. Gentleman, however, did imply was this. The extract which he read to-day did not begin soon enough. The argument which he put up—and that was the one which disturbed me—I do not know what he says about malingering or anything of the kind—

Mr. CHURCHILL: I never used the word

Mr. MacDONALD: Very well. The right hon. Gentleman did not use that word? I am perfectly content to have what is on record. That is good enough for me. What was disturbing was that he seemed to indicate that it was because those practices were going on—
a general habit of learning how to qualify for unemployment insurance
—that that—and this is his argument—explained why unemployment figures were going up. That was the disturbing thing. That is his argument. It is knit in. I am not going to trouble the Com-
mittee with the quotation, but the quotation must begin at the top of Column 457 of the OFFICIAL REPORT not halfway down, because the whole is a statement of a connected idea. I was listening very carefully to every word the right hon. Gentleman said, and the alarming and disturbing part was that he did indicate, and he did convey, that it was the, conviction of the Government that if the malingerers, if the people who were on the fund who ought not to be on it, were only taken off, the result would be that the figures would show a diminution. That is not true. The first part of our intention is adequately fulfilled. No abler reply to the Chancellor of the Exchequer could have been made than has been made by the Minister of Labour this afternoon. Those figures which he gave regarding the mining industry is an unanswerable reply. It was the knowledge of those figures, and it was the knowledge of what was behind those figures that agitated so many of my hon. Friends behind me, knowing that pit after pit was being closed in their own constituencies, not because men wanted to go on the fund, but because there was no demand for coal. It was that that made them put fire into their indignation, and their observations as to the expressions of opinion they believed the right hon. Gentleman was expressing

Mr. CHURCHILL: Fire? Is howling down "fire"?

Mr. LANSBURY: It is like your howling down Lyttelton.

Mr. MacDONALD: They had had a very good example from the right hon. Gentleman. I was sitting where my own representative the hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. Balfour) is now sitting, and witnessed that extraordinary scene from below the Gangway. These incidents are not pleasant; they are not becoming. But who is going to cast the first stone? I believe I aid one of the very few men who could do it, because I have never taken part in any of them. I have never countenanced them. I have done all I could to prevent them. As I have already indicated, I regretted it, for it gave the right hon. Gentleman the most magnificent opportunity of getting out of a hole by a backdoor. I wanted to hear him. I think we have been deprived of a tremendous advantage, and nobody knows it
better than the right hon. Gentleman. We have been deprived of a tremendous advantage by the fact that the right hon. Gentleman sat down with that speech unborn. That was the first reason why we have raised this Debate, and we are fully satisfied. The second reason why we raised it was we wanted to get an account of this prolonged six months' stewardship, and what have we got? Really, what have we got? We have been told that the problem is a very difficult and complicated one. Of course, it is. Nobody has said that more than we have. We have been told that the intention of the Government is to reduce the unemployed on the live registers of the exchanges to such an extent that the 4d. extra contribution can be taken off, because the unemployment fund will begin to be on a sound financial footing again. That is the intention of the Government.
Then, no sooner are we told that, and, apparently, that has been forgotten for a moment, than in the most painfully solemn way he assures us, "I see no prospect for months, and years maybe, of our trade getting better." Shipping can only be put on a sound basis after the surplusage of shipping has been worn off. Foreign trade can only be put upon a sound basis again, and the volume required to employ our working people restored after the exchanges have been put all right, and the markets have been reopened again. Like a wise man, the right hon. Gentleman guards his own position. If we, when in office, were to be rushed, he is going to be very careful that he will not be rushed, but he has given us to understand, as a matter of fact, that neither by way of promoting consultation between employers and employed, nor by way of urging trade into a new spirit, nor by way of opening up new markets, nor by way of home development—in none of these directions, which many of us believe provide, at any rate, a certain means of meeting the situation, does he look for any solution. Yet, with all that in front of him, he is under the impression that in a comparatively short time he is going to reduce the figures of unemployment until they come to a point when the Fund will be financially sound enough to enable him to take off 4d. from the extra payments now exacted in order that it may go into the Fund to provide pensions for widows.
This is a very serious situation. The right hon. Gentleman says, "We never said we could cure unemployment." They did. They said it in two different ways. The Prime Minister said, "Give me the power to protect; give me the power to create tariffs, and then I will deal with unemployment." He did not get the power. We all admit—we always hear it from the other side and I give them credit for it—that hon. Members are anxious to deal with the question. So far as intention is concerned, I think, perhaps, it is six of one and half a dozen of the other as between hon. Members on this side and those on the other side. We are all sincerely anxious to do what we can to solve this problem. But may I say to hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite, that I think they do not really understand the situation. Assuming that we are all anxious to deal with this problem, and that we believe it to be one of the most persistent and insistent and uncomfortable calls made upon us to put our heads, our hearts and our intelligences together in order to find a solution, yet right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite say, "We know how it is going to be solved. We know, at any rate, the way in which it is going to be tackled, even if you cannot solve it, and the way by which you can do so much substantial good in the direction of removing it. We can tell you how to do it." And yet, on account of political exigencies, they say, "We will not do if." It is said, "We cannot get Protection. We did not get it in 1923, but we are still of the same opinion." Where is the responsibility which we hear talked about so often by the other side? If hon. Members opposite would fight their battles and take their licking, and come up and fight again, we would think more of this great allegiance which they profess than I am afraid we do think.
At the same time, while they did tell us they could substantially reduce the risks of unemployment by Protection, they did more at the last election. I can only go on my own experience, but all over the country, and certainly in my own constituency, Conservative employers went out in support of Liberals. It was a Coalition platform. The lion and the lamb lay down together and roared together. In one audience they roared
with the voice of one element in the combination, in another audience they bleated together with the voice of the other element in the combination. They equally said, "Elect one or other of us." Conservative employers of labour in my constituency went out on the Liberal platform and said, "The reason why we want to beat this man is that, so long as he and his friends have any influence in the country, trade is bound to be bad, and if only we get a Conservative majority in the new House of Commons, that will bring about a better state of trade. That pledge has not been fulfilled. [HON. MEMBERS: "An anticipation."] It was only an anticipation, but it was an anticipation which was expressed with so much authority behind it, that people accepted it as a pledge.
How could the situation have been dealt with? We are told to-day that the right hon. Gentleman has great belief in electrical development. He has been in office for six months and he says, "I cannot tell you what we have done," but when we were in office they simply bombarded us with question as to what we were doing. They knew perfectly well that we were engaged in delicate negotiations about the development of electrical power; they knew perfectly well that we were seeing experts engaged in private enterprise and private electrical engineers; they knew perfectly well that we were working our own electrical department to its maximum; they knew the whole question was being explored both at home and abroad. They demanded that we should state what was the great scheme which we had in mind. I do not object, but after this it is rather cool of the right hon. Gentleman to come to us at the end of his six months of office and say to us this afternoon, "I ask you to believe my honesty as a very sincere and simple minded man, that I have been working on this matter, and I cannot tell you what is going on, but I hope before the House rises I may tell you something more than I have been able to tell you this afternoon." I hope so too. All I can say is this, that the electrical scheme was very well investigated—not by any means to the end—but I guarantee that if my right hon. Friend the late Chancellor of the. Exchequer and the Committee which was working with him had got another six months, the statement that
would have been made from that Box, would not have been to the effect that we hoped to be able before the end of the Session to give some indication as to how far we had gone in the exploration of the subject.
What is the position to which we have come? I am a believer in insurance, but there are certain conditions which insurance ought to satisfy. If a condtion of affairs becomes habitual you cannot insure against it because the whole spirit and science of insurance is violated. If you have one million people unemployed, a considerable proportion of whom—I do not know what the number is—remain out of work not for six months but for two years or three years, with very little chance of getting any employment for another two or three years, then the conditions under which insurance is a scientific and safe proposition are wanting. That is the position in which we are to-day. There is no use carrying on an insurance fund and complacently saying: "We will reduce the number and we will try by applying the whip to give the necessary incentive to the workmen." That is merely a policy of sheer negation and absolute despair. That is the position taken up by the right hon. Gentleman this afternoon.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I am sure the right lion. Gentleman will realise that I do not wish to interrupt him unnecessarily, but we have not such a large body of people out of work for two and three years together. The million on the unemployment register represent a number of between three million and four million who are in and out, and the average man has a very much shorter actual period of unemployment in a given year than the right hon. Gentleman seems to indicate. Consequently, the insurance principle is much more applicable to the position than I think the right hon. Gentleman realises.

Mr. MacDONALD: If that is so, then the insurance principle is much more applicable than I thought. I am no longer supplied with the daily or weekly figures, but I get my information from my hon. Friends who are following this matter very closely, and I am told from all hands that one of the great trials of unemployment is the number of people, especially young people, who are out of
work for long unbroken periods, and who, when they get employment at all, only get in temporarily. In this argument I am not talking at all as on a party question. One of the most important things on which the Minister of Labour must keep his eye, is to guard against a condition of industry productive of results which vitiate at its very root the whole principle of insurance. Then it becomes systematic and continued relief, and the moral condition which follows from that is horrible, and when he admits that certain moral defects must inevitably arise from this attempt to deal with unemployment and bad trade, he will find that nobody will support him more whole-heartedly than the hon. Members around me.
Take another illustration. My difficulty is that I have so many illustrations showing the absolute negation and self-complacency that seems to be ruling in this matter. I will illustrate it by an observation which the right hon. Gentleman made about Russia. What does it amount to? We are told that before the War Germany did a larger proportion of the Russian import trade than we did; that such is no longer the ease, and that therefore we ought to be satisfied. I am not satisfied at all. If that observation was not intended as a justification, why was it made at all? Certainly it was not made for our information. It was not a detached piece of information such as would be given by a schoolmaster. I do not think the right hon. Gentleman had that in his mind at all. He made the observation to justify and explain the position which he was taking up regarding Russia. He went on and said that Russian trade came to this country only through one narrow neck of a bottle and we could not allow that. Why not?

Mr. MACQUISTEN: You cannot sue for debts, and they will not pay you

Mr. MacDONALD: Up to now I am informed, we do not require to sue for debt. I am dealing with the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Labour and not with my amusing Friend opposite. Supposing the right hon. Gentleman's description to be true. It. is not quite accurate as a description, but I am not going to quarrel with it. Even supposing it is true, why not deal with it? Is the bottle neck chocked It is not, and no-
body knows better than the right hon. Gentleman that if we could treat Russian trade and the Russian demand, for the purposes of overseas trade credits, in precisely the same way as we would treat France, Italy or any other State in Europe, that bottle neck may be narrow but it is not so narrow that we could not get a lot more trade through it. That is all I am interested in. The position is this. The right hon. Gentleman has got some theoretical ideas as to bow trade ought to be conducted. He has derived them from his own historical position. There are many things in heaven and in earth that are not dreamt of in his philosophy, and it may be—who is going to say?—that when the time comes that there is a better organisation of national industry, there will be more bottle necks. I do not know. It would be a very interesting subject of conversation between the right hon. Gentleman and myself one evening by a fireside, but from the point of view of the man who is presiding over the Ministry of Labour, concerned with the problem of British unemployment and British trade and the grip that Great Britain is going to have upon the European market once normal conditions are established, that consideration is of absolutely no account.
The man who is going to sit at the Board of Trade during the next three or four years, and the man who is going to sit at the Ministry of Labour during the next three or four years, had better throw off all their old preconceptions and all the ideas they have inherited about our past methods of conducting trade. [An HON. MEMBER: "Hear, hear. Trade union regulations! "] If trade union regulations cannot be justified, I am opposed to them. That is the trouble. Instead of throwing off their preconceived notions, instead of going on into 1926 and 1927, and 1930, so many hon. Members go back to 1810, to 1750, to the time of the combination laws, and so on. I do not care whether it is Tariff Reform that you have in your mind when you applaud me, or whether it is trade union regulations that you have in your mind. So far as my hon. Friends and I are concerned, if those regulations cannot be justified, then they are wrong. So far as we are concerned, we can justify them up to the hilt, but to come here and say, "I am not going to consider what I can do with the
Russian market and with Russian trade," looking ahead three, four, five, or six years from now, when Germany will be normal, when Russia will be more normal, when Russian currency will be nearer parity of exchange and certainly will be stabilised—the men who sit at the Board of Trade and Labour Ministry and do not take these things into consideration, are not doing their duty to the nation, to whichever party they belong or of whatever Government they may be members, and I am bound to confess—I have been listening carefully to what the Minister of Labour has said—that I am compelled to come to the conclusion that he is very nearly in the frame of mind that I have described.
What have they done for foreign trade? We appointed that Committee which the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) seemed only to have heard of in a very casual way. That Committee was appointed for a very serious purpose, for the purpose of making an immediate investigation, and for a very early report. Not only that, but we appointed advisers. We asked that certain leading men—important men concerned in, and in control of, two or three of the most important industries that would be affected by the settlement of Europe after the Dawes Report came into operation, leading men representing employers, leading men representing the trade unions in those industries—should come as an Advisory Committee and guide us in the matter. What has happened to that Committee? I am told that nothing has happened at all. One of the men who was appointed happened to meet me the other day with a long and mournful face, and he said that nothing was being done now, though the change, so far as an industrial impetus was concerned, was more marked than he cared to confess. The complacency which the right hon. Gentleman opposite showed when he referred to the meetings of employers and employed surprised me. Tie said: "Let them alone; they have to meet again." They have been meeting for 18 months, he admitted in response to the interruption of an hon. Member behind me, but he could not ask them, he said almost with pride, to face the facts. Ought he not to bring them to
face the facts? That is the function of the Government. [An HON. MEMBER: "No ! "] If the hon. Member opposite who said "No" belonged to a, laisser faire party, I could understand, but he belongs to a party that professes to believe in the positive influence of the State on trade. Does he only believe in that positive influence when it influences his own trade for good?
So far as I am concerned, I believe in the positive influence of the State. I believe that the State, that the Minister who has got authority, can get employers and employed together, and he, as the representative of the consumer, as the representative of the community, can bring them face to face with facts far more quickly than they will come face to face with facts if they are left to discuss Things alone. They both have difficulties, we know. Neither of them trust each other. We heard yesterday that the corking men do not trust the employers, and there is very good reason for not trusting them. The idea of this great Government that was going on revive trade is to allow those two sides that, by over a century of unfortunate experience, have drifted apart and created a real class cleavage based upon economic conditions, to meet together hostile, suspicious, to meet for 18 months before they come to face the real problems, as sooner or later they will have to do. The conception of the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Labour of his duty is fundamentally wrong. Six months ago it would have been perfectly simple to get the two sides to have met together, with a statement of the public need, and then, when they were faced with the facts by the Minister, you would have had a very much shorter way to any agreement that they could come to. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why did not your Government do it?"] We did our very best, over and over again. Indeed, one of the characteristics of our Government was that it did settle, probably, more disputes than any other Government in a like time.
Wise persons settle before a dispute arises, but if anyone imagines that, for instance, the engineering trade or the coal trade has a clear sky right away to the horizon at the present time, I think he is very much deceived. When we came in, we found the difficulties matured, and we had to settle them when the clouds were dark, but we brought the parties
together and settled the disputes time after time. We left the sky clear, more or less[Interruption.]There may have been difficulties in the coal trade, but there was not the position then that there is now, and there was not the division then that there is now. These last few months of abortive negotiations have not improved the situation. Hon. Members take credit for waiting until the clouds gather and the deluge pours on their heads, and say that until the pour comes there is peace. There is nothing of the kind. There is as little peace to-day in this country as when we were in the middle of very serious trade disputes, but there it is. Our first object this evening was to challenge the statement made by Chancellor of the Exchequer, and to remove it from the mind of every reasonable man. That has been accomplished. Our second object was to find out what the Government are doing. That has also been accomplished, and what we find is this, that they are doing nothing, except preparing to reduce the number of unemployed on the live register in order that they may be saved fourpence, so that they may subscribe to a compulsory contributory scheme of old age pensions and widows' and orphans' pensions. We are perfectly satisfied with what has happened to-day

Lieut.CommanderKENWORTHY: When the present Government was formed, I understood that the Ministry of Labour was to be made into a great powerful Ministry, with much greater functions than it ever had before. 1 t was common knowledge, and reported officially in the papers, I believe, by the Prime Minister, that the position was offered to the right hon. Member for Hillhead (Sir R. Horne) instead of that of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, which everyone expected he would get, because it was going to be the premier post in the Government. The Ministry of Labour was, going to be the most important Government Department, and at last this great problem of unemployment was going to be tackled, and work found for the unemployed. On the right hon. Member for Hillhead declining this post—it was somewhat unkindly said he declined it because he is a Scotsman and the salary was less than that of the other post, but we, who know him, acquit him of that—it was offered to another Scotsman, and the
right hon. Baronet who now adorns the office accepted it. I presume that the Prime Minister still holds this to be a post of great importance, and that he did not, in failing to get the right hon. Member for Hillhead for it, give up his plan of making the Labour Ministry the fighting Ministry, the Ministry with the forward policy, that was going to solve the great problem of the workless of this country. I presume, therefore, when he offered it to the right hon. Baronet the Member for Erdington (Sir A. Steel-Maitland), the intention was that this was still going to be the grandiose Department which was to develop great schemes for the unemployed.
Now, after six months of office, we have had the results laid before us, and I put it to the Committee that they are simply scandalous, that the whole policy of the Government is bankrupt, and that they are taking this matter with reprehensible complacency. They have got used to the spectacle of more than a million unemployed. I do not say that they are hardened to the sufferings of the people, but their consciences are not quite so keen as they were at the beginning of the great trade slump. They are trying to do as little as possible. They accuse my right hon. Friend the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) with having pursued the policy of oscillation when he was in office, but they themselves are pursuing a policy, not of masterly inactivity, but of miserable inactivity. Their policy is static. We have had, as the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs said, not one new thought, not one new idea, from the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Labour. In his speech on unemployment at the beginning of the Session, he said something about deep water sites. May I ask whether any progress has been made in that matter? The one new idea that we have had from his Department is this of deep water sites. Has anything been done to develop them? Are any men doing any work preparing them? Has a single scheme been produced by his Department, and accepted by any local body or any great commercial firm, that will develop a deep water site, or was that an idea just thrown into the air, and
nothing further done about it? That is the one new idea that we have had from the right hon. Gentleman, and, apparently, it is an idea and nothing more, because nothing practical has been done in connection with it. Otherwise, we have had a series of platitudes, and the usual sympathy expressed with the unemployed, but that is not good enough.
I ask hon. and right hon. Members opposite to remember that they are a minority Government, representing a minority of the voters of the country. More votes were cast for their opponents than for them, and I wish they would remember that. They were sent into office to find some means of relieving this great distress amongst the great masses of our fellow-countrymen, but they are doing nothing, and if they cannot find a remedy, they had better get out of it. They had better resign and let somebody else try. In any case, I would most earnestly suggest to the right hon. Gentleman—who is rather given to resigning—I think he did it, if I remember rightly, from the Coalition Government—that if he cannot find any remedy for this matter, if he cannot produce some idea, seriously to consider resigning again. I am sure there is some other Government Department where his great abilities would be of great value. They are obviously wasted where he is. I think he is wasted at the Ministry of Labour. He has not yet made that great Department what it was hoped he would. He has not been given any sort of free hand; worse than that, he has been given no encouragement, and no funds to do anything.
We have had one practical scheme put before the country. That was the scheme of my right hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen (Sir A. Mond). He has produced a scheme for subsidising industry by means of the unemployment benefit. At any rate, it is a practical scheme. What are the Government's views about it? Have they looked into it? I understand that there have been two Government Committees sitting, dealing with unemployment and cognate subjects. What is the result of all this? Is the right hon. Gentleman chairman of one or the other of them, or of both? Nothing whatever has been produced as a result of these Cabinet Committees' deliberations. I have a further complaint
to make, and that is, that the right hon. Gentleman does not himself really know in some respects what he is talking about. I am going in some degrees to follow the footsteps of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition. He quoted the Minister of Labour upon Russia. What the Minister said is grossly inaccurate. It is simply not true. The right hon. Gentleman has read what he gave out in the "Morning Post," or in the Duke of Northumberland's weekly paper, I forget for the moment its name, to the effect that the Russian Government has a complete monopoly of foreign trade. That is absolutely untrue. I think I could name six separate organisations in London, representing six separate entities, trading with Russia. There are these, as well as agencies, and several shipping companies. These, I say, are all separate entities.
It is true that the Russian Government has shares in them, but is that any reason for not trying to encourage trade with Russia? If that is the case, if because the Russian Government has shares in these trading organisations the right hon. Gentleman takes up the attitude he does, then the objections are political and for political reasons he is stopping British trade. In connection with the Overseas Trade Department there is an insurance schedule in which the countries included are set out. Russia has not been included in that schedule. Therefore the merchant who wishes to insure his goods—I am talking about the interests of the British merchants and manufacturers in England of whom the goods are bought—who wishes to insure his goods is precluded from doing so. I say that that is being done for political and improper reasons, because of political prejudice and the spite of the present Government. Consider the performances of the right hon. Baronet in the last Parliament. The only time he intervened in the Debates on Russia was to attack the Russian Government in the interests of the people for whom he spoke. He frankly admitted who they were—the bondholders. On that occasion in the House of Commons he made a contribution to the Debate and spoke from a brief derived from the Association of Russian Bondholders in order, if possible, to bring pressure to bear upon the Russian Government in the interests of those bondholders.
This sympathy for the one, and political prejudice against the Government of Russia is to prevent British merchants exporting British goods, manufactured in British factories, with the existence of the Export Credits Scheme.
For this reason men are walking the streets unable to find work in our engineering and other centres of industry in this country. For this reason, too, young lads and girls who are leaving school are learning habits of idleness that will have a lasting effect for evil on their habits. This matter of unemployment is the most serious thing the country has ever had to face. The results of it are more serious than the Great War because it is sapping the very vitality of our young people, sapping initiative and those habits of industry, energy, and self-reliance which have made this country what it is. These are the qualities that have enabled this little island, with its population that has grown from 10,000,000 to be the greatest and strongest nation in the world. What has been accomplished has been accomplished by certain characteristics of our people. These characteristics are being undermined and jeopardised by this long-drawn-out slump in trade. A portion of that may be relieved, yet the Government refuse to help from political prejudice against another Government, because it has shares in British companies trading in its name. I say that is scandalous. I hope it will be brought before the country. I hope it will result in this Government being thrown out at the next election; of their suffering the greatest possible defeat that a Conservative Government has ever suffered—and that is saying a great deal. I am quite certain of this, that, whatever Government takes its place, would hardly, after six months in office, come forward without anything resembling an idea for the solution of so great a question.

Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: It is strange that the hon. and gallant Gentleman who has just sat down should make a point of the Government being a minority Government on votes when the party to which he himself belongs are themselves in a considerable minority in this House. However, I should like just to call the attention of the Committee once more to the speech of the leader of
the Opposition who, as he always does, gave us a most interesting speech. I do not think that it assisted the Debate very much by anything very constructive, but he did make one rather important statement. He said that the time had come when we should really scrap all older gear, and begin with something new. With that we on this side of the House all agreed. I ventured to interrupt the right hen. Gentleman, and to inquire whether he included trade union regulations. The right hon. Gentleman replied "Of course," and turning round to his followers behind said: "I am sure that all hon. Members behind me are in agreement on that point." I waited for some time to hear the cheers that I expected would follow, but the hon. Gentlemen behind the Leader of the Opposition never cheered at all. An hon. Member during the course of the Debate made an interesting contribution by mentioning that two men whom he knew, were very good workers, skilled men, had been obliged to migrate to Australia. The hon. Member seemed to think that that was a very great hardship. I venture to say that that was the best thing that could have happened to these men. I have had a good deal of experience in migration matters perhaps more than any other Member sitting
to-day in this House. I can go back for a good many years. For 16 years I was chairman of the Central Emigration Board. During that time I had passing through my hands a very large number of persons, and I can assure hon. Members opposite that the boys and men who went out under the auspices of the Board are doing exceedingly well on the other side. Not one per cent, have turned out failures. I would suggest to the Minister of Labour and to the Government, that this question of migration should be considered more directly in connection with the problem of unemployment

Mr. THOMAS: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Minister of Labour and the late Government have had this matter in hand? There are 50,000 names registered at this moment of those willing to go abroad, and no arrangements can be made. It is not the fault of the Government here.

Lieut.-Colonel WATTS-MORGAN: May I remind the hon. Gentleman that we have 400 miners registered and we cannot get money to help them out?

Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: These facts are known to me. The right hon. Gentleman opposite will not suggest that I am speaking without knowledge when I speak about migration. What I do say in regard to the Labour party is that, while right hon. Gentlemen of recent years have been anxious to help migration, for many years the Labour party were the great stumbling block in the way of migration. If they have been converted, as they seem to have been, I am only too pleased to know it. I should just like to suggest to them, and to the right hon. Gentleman who has just interrupted me, that they should go out from this House to the country, and state upon the platforms there to the men they represent what they have said, and tell them what careers are to be found in Australia or Canada for them and their families. It is no use talking about the names or numbers of the people who are registered. That is only because there are so many people who cannot get out. That is the business of the Government. They and the Government overseas should get together, and they will soon find some means by which to overcome every difficulty.
I pass from that question to what is called the "dole." In this connection I am very glad to know that the Minister of Labour is going to institute an inquiry into the administration and distribution of unemployment benefit. There is no doubt that at the present moment it is not exactly what it ought to be. What the hon. Gentleman opposite said is quite true. When the Employment Exchanges were first established in this country, it was thought that they would practically solve any question of unemployment. They have not done so. They are not doing so. The Employment Exchanges want a good deal of looking into. The machinery wants a good deal of oiling. There is need for a good many new methods. I hope the proposed inquiry will do something in that direction. In regard to the statement made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer the other night, which seemed to cause a great deal of excitement, I venture to tell hon. Members, whether they like it or do not
like it, that there is growing up a great number of people in this country who, as the Chancellor said, are qualifying for the dole.

Mr. TAYLOR: Do you mean deliberately?

Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: I mean deliberately qualifying for the dole. I say there are a great many persons—

Mr. W. THORNE: You are a perverter of the truth.

8.0 P.M.

Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Let me give the Committee one case. Before do that, however, I would like to call attention to a statement made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Platting (Mr. Clynes). He said:
Let the Minister of Labour advertise for five men to do work at Downing Street, and give them any kind of work to do, and he will get them".
Let me reply to that. My reply is that it is by no means a certainty.[Interruption.]A friend of most of the hon. Members opposite—a gentleman whose hospitality some of them have enjoyed with me at the same time—told me this yesterday. He said: "I advertised for five men to do work in my garden, and with what result? I offered one man &£2 10s. a. week, and he would not take it. He said, ' That is no good to me.'" I will not say what my friend said to him.

Mr. THORNE: Perhaps he may have been a watchmaker.

Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: No, he was not a watchmaker. He said to the second man, "What will you take?" and the man said, "I am a skilled mechanic, and I cannot take less than £5 a week."[Interruption.]These, are facts. It is no use laughing. [HON. MEMBERS: "Give us the names."] The third man said, "I want £3 15s., and my union will not let me take less."[Interruption.]These are facts. I will give the hon. Member who does not agree with me—

Mr. THORNE: Give us the name of the men and the union.

Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: No; I am not giving names in the House. I will give them afterwards. That is quite fair. There is one more case, as to which, with all due respect to the feelings of hon. Members opposite, I venture to think
they will agree with me when I say that if it was not a fraud on the dole, it was coming very near it. This was the case of a boy. The father of this boy came to a friend of mine and said, "I see you are advertising an article for sale. You want 1,000. I will give you £700." He gave him &£700 for it. A few days afterwards my friend said to him, "When are you going to take that article away?" and the man replied, "I will send my son down to take it away, as he is going to work it." The son turned up on a motor bicycle, and my friend, who is interested in boys, said, "What are you doing?" The son said, "I am out of work. I have given up the place I had. I did not like it." "Oh," said my friend," that is unfortunate. You ought to be on the dole." "Yes," he said, "and so I am." "Well." said my friend, "what do you do with the money? Your father and mother do not want it. What do you do with it? "Why," he answered, "I have to pay for that motor bicycle. That is what I do with it." [HON. MEMBERS: "Rubbish ! "] My friend rang up on the telephone the employer of that young man, and asked, "What wage did you pay him when he was with you? "and the employer said, "36s. a week." And remember the boy said he left of his own accord.

Mr. THORNE: If he left of his own accord, he is not entitled to the dole.

Mr. THOMAS: I do not want the Committee to be under a wrong impression. This is too important to let it pass. Will the hon. Gentleman give us the name of the employer and of the individual, and I personally &—never mind what the Government will do—will undertake to investigate it? Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that if the thing took place as he says, the officials are to blame, because they are not allowed to give the dole under those conditions?

Sir.C.KINLOCH-COOKE: Exactly That is my point. I began by saying that I was pleased to hear an inquiry was going to be made into these things.

Mr. THOMAS: Will you give us the facts?

Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: I am giving examples which show why an inquiry should be made. It is no use hon. Members protesting unless they say that what I am saying is not true.

Mr. WESTWOOD: It is not true. [HON. MEMBERS:Give us the names ! "]

Sir C. KINLOCH - COOKE: I do not think 1 ought to do it here. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] In the first place, I do not know the name of the employer[Interruption.]I told you that the story was told to me by a friend of mine who was ready to befriend the boy. I have given you chapter and verse[Laughter.]If you do not like that, I will tell you another one. A lady got into conversation with another woman—[Laughter]—another lady, a friend of mine.

Mr. THORNE: You have got a lot of friends.

Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Yes, I have, and they speak the truth, and you do not like it. She said, "I have three boys on the dole, or, rather, I had three boys on the dole, but one has got a job. He has had to go a long way off, and he pays 25s. a week for his room. I do wish he had not left, because they were all three together, and we were having a very good time. Now I am afraid I cannot take my youngest boy to the seaside, as I was looking forward to doing."[Laughter.]If you are not satisfied with that, I will refer to another emigration story, Two boys went to Canada. Those two boys were porters on a railway station. [HON. MEMBERS: Ah! "] Now I am getting somewhere near the heart of the right hon. Gentleman opposite. They were two porters on a railway station. Why have they gone to Canada? Not for quite the same reason as the two men the hon. Member told us about who went to Australia, not because they were out of work, for they had plenty of work to do, but they said they could not stay in a country which put up with such a thing as the dole. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why? "] I will tell you why. These two boys had to pay a very high price for a room in the house

of a man who spent his time in the garden, sitting out there in his flannels, and drawing the dole. I could go on with the stories.

Mr. THORNE: I would like to know whether this will all be reported in the OFFICIAL REPORT?

Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Oh, yes, you will see it in the OFFICIAL REPORT

Lieut.-Colonel WATTS-MORGAN: And numbered I hope—bakehouse stories. [HON. MEMBERS: "Fairy stories I "]

Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: No, not fairy stories, I wish they were. I have mentioned these things to show that when the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer made the statement he did, he made it quite fairly. He was right in what he said. There is a great number of persons who are what is called "qualifying for the dole," and some of those persons spend their dole in self-indulgence, some of them spend it in purchasing things which may be useful to them, but they do not all spend it in endeavouring to procure for themselves the necessities of life. Of course, the large majority of people who are receiving the dole do not do this —of course, they do not do this: but if there is a minority, to use the term of the hon. and gallant Member opposite, if there is a minority, even a small minority, surely the time has come when we ought to have an inquiry into the administration of the Unemployment Insurance Act. Therefore, I once more congratulate the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Labour on the statement that he is going to have an inquiry, and I hope that inquiry will go to the root of the matter and be very efficient.

Question put, "That a sum, not exceeding &£8,359,109, be granted for the said Service."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 111; Noes, 320.

Division No.103.]
AYES.
[8.12 p.m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Bromley, J.
Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Gibbins, Joseph


Alexander, A. V.(Sheffield, Hlllsbro')
Charleton, H. C.
Gillett, George M.


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Cluse, W. S.
Gosling, Harry


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Compton, Joseph
Graham, D. M.(Lanark, Hamilton)


Barnes, A.
Connolly, M.
Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)


Barr, J.
Dalton, Hugh
Greenall, T.


Beckett, John (Gateshead)
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Greenwood, A.(Nelson and Colne)


Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)
Day, Colonel Harry
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)


Broad, F. A.
Duncan, C.
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)


Grundy, T. W.
Morrlton, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Stamford, T. W.


Guest, Dr. L. Haden (Southwark, N.)
Murnin, H.
Sutton, J. E.


Hall, F. (York. W. R., Normanton)
Oliver, George Harold
Taylor, R. A.


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Palin, John Henry
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)


Harney, E. A.
Paling, W.
Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro. W)


Hayday, Arthur
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Pialstow)


Haves, John Henry
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Thurtle, E.


Hirst, G. H.
Ponsonby, Arthur
Tinker, John Joseph


Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Potts, John S.
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.


Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Vlant, S. P.


Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfleld)
Rlley, Ben
Wallhead, Richard C.


John, William (Rhondda, West)
Ritson, J.
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Robertson, J. (Lanark, Bothwell)
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W.R., Elland)
Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney


Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Salter, Dr. Alfred
Westwood, J.


Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Scrymgeour, E.
Whiteley, W.


Kelly, W. T.
Scurr, John
Wignall, James


Kennedy, T.
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Lansbury, George
Sitch, Charles H.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Lee. F.
Smillie, Robert
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Livingstone, A. M.
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Lowth. T.
Smith, H. B. Lees- (Keighley)
Windsor, Walter


MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)
Wright, W.


Mackinder, w.
Snell, Harry
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip



March, S.
Spencer, George A. (Broxtowe)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Montague, Frederick
Spoor, Rt. Hon. Benjamin Charles
Mr. Warne and Mr. T. Henderson.


NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Forestier-Walker, L.


Ainsworth, Major Charles
Cayzer, Maj.Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth.S.)
Forrest, W.


Albery, Irving James
Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Foster, Sir Harry S.


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Foxcroft, Captain C. T.


Allen, J.Sandeman (L'pool, W.Derby)
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.)
Fraser, Captain Ian


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Christie, J. A.
Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony


Ashmead-Bartlett, E.
Churchman, Sir Arthur C.
Galbraith, J. F. W.


Astbury, Lieut.-Commander, F. W.
Clarry, Reginald George
Ganzoni, Sir John


Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)
Clayton, G. C.
Gates, Percy


Atholl, Duchess of
Cobb, Sir Cyril
Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Gee, Captain R.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Coffox, Major Wm. Phillips
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John


Balniel, Lord
Conway, Sir W. Martin
Glyn, Major R. G. C.


Banks, Reginald Mitchell
Cope, Major WiMlam
Goff, Sir Park


Barclay-Harvey C. M.
Courtauld, Major J. S.
Gower, Sir Robert


Barnston, Major Sir Harry
Courthope, Lieut.-Col. George L.
Grace, John


Beamish, Captain T. P. H.
Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islington,N.)
Greene, W. P. Crawford


Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)
Craig, Capt. Rt. Hon. C. C. (Antrim)
Grenfell. Edward C. (City of London)


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.
Craig, Ernest (Chester, Crewe)
Gretton, Colonel John


Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish-
Cralk, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Grotrian, H. Brent


Berry, Sir George
Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E. (Bristol, N.)


Betterton, Henry B.
Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.


Birchall, Major j. Dearman
Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Gunston, Captain D. W.


Bird, E. B. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)
Crookshank, Cpt. H.(Lindsey,Gainsbro)
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.


Blundell, F. N.
Cunllffe, Joseph Herbert
Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)


Boothby, R. J. G.
Curtis-Bennett, Sir Henry
Hammersley, S. S.


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Curzon, Captain Viscount
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry


Bowater, Sir T. Vanslttart
Dalketth, Earl of
Harland, A.


Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.
Davidson, J.(Hertf'd, Hemel Hempst'd)
Harrison, G. J. C.


Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.
Davidson. Major-General Sir J. H.
Hartington, Marquess of


Brass, Captain W.
Davies, A. V. (Lancaster, Royton)
Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)


Brassey, Sir Leonard
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovll)
Haslam, Henry C.


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Davies, Sir Thomas (Clrencester)
Hawke, John Anthony


Brings, J. Harold
Dawson, Sir Philip
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.


Briscoe, Richard George
Dlxey, A. C.
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)


Brittain, Sir Harry
Doyle, Sir N, Grattan
Henderson, Lieut. Col. V. L. (Bootle)


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Drewe, C.
Heneage, Lieut,-Col. Arthur P.


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Eden, Captain Anthony
Henn, Sir Sydney H.


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Edmondson. Major A. J.
Henniker-Hughan, Vice-Adm. Sir A.


Brown, Mai. D. C. (N'th'l'd, Hexham)
Ellis. R. G.
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)


Brown, Brig.-Gen.H.C.(Berks, Newb'y)
Elveden, Viscount
Hilton, Cecil


Buckingham, Sir H.
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.


Bullock, Captain M.
Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard


Burgoyne, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Alan
Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)
Holland, Sir Arthur


Burman, J. B.
Everard, W. Lindsay
Holt, Capt. H. P.


Burney, Lieut.-Com. Charles D.
Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Hope, Capt. A O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)


Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)


Butt, Sir Alfred
Falls, Sir Charles F.
Horllck, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Fanshawe, Commander G. D.
Howard, Captain Hon. Donald


Calne, Gordon Hall
Fielden, E. B.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)


Campbell, E. T.
Fleming, D. P.
Hudson, R. S. (Cumberl'nd,Whiteh'n) 


Cassels, J. D.
Ford, P. J.
Hume, Sir G. H.




Hunter-Weston. Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive
Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)


Huntingfield, Lord
Murchison, C. K.
Sinclair, Col. T.(Queen's Unlv.,Belfst)


Hurd, Percy A.
Nail, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Joseph
Skelton, A. N.


Hurst, Gerald B.
Nelson, Sir Frank
Smith, R.W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.|


Hutchison,G.A.Clark (Mldl'n&P'bl's)
Neville, R. J.
Smith & Carington, Neville W.


llifie, Sir Edward M.
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Smithers, Waldron


Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Jackson, Lieut. Colonel Hon. F. S.
Nicholson, 0. (Westminster)
Spender Clay, Colonel H.


Jacob, A. E.
Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)
Sprot, Sir Alexander


James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Nuttall, Ellis
Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Wlll'sden, E.)


Jephcott, A. R.
Oakley, T.
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)
O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G.(Westm'eland)


Kennedy, A. R. (Preston).
Oman, Sir Charles William C.
Steel, Major Samuel Strang


Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William
Storry Deans, R.


King, Captain Henry Douglas
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.


Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Strickland, Sir Gerald


Lamb, J. Q.
Peto, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.


Lane-Fox, Lieut,-Col. George R.
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)
Philipson, Mabel
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Lister, Cunllffe-Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Pilcher, G.
Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.


Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)
Pilditch, Sir Philip
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Locker-ampson, G. (Wood Green)
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Locker-I-ampson, Com. O. (Handtw'th)
Preston, William
Thomson. Sir w. Mitchell-(Croydon,S.)


Loder, I. de V.
Price, Major C. W. M.
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Looker, Herbert William
Radford, E. A.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Lord, Walter Greaves-
Raine, W.
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere
Ramsden, E.
Waddington, R.


Luce, Major-Gen.Sir Richard Harman
Rees, Sir Beddoe
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Lumley, L. R.
Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)
Ward, Lt.-Col. A.L.(Kingston-on-Hull)


Lynn, Sir Robert J.
Reid, D. D. (County Down)
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


MacAndrew, Charles Glen
Remnant, Sir James
Warrender, Sir Victor


Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Rentoul, G. S.
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Macdonald, R (Glasgow, Cathcart)
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.
Watts, Dr. T.


McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus
Rice, Sir Frederick
Wells, S. R.


Macintyre, Ian
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)
Wheler, Major Granville C. H.


McLean, Major A.
Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)
White, Lieut.-Colonel G. Dalrymple


Macmillan, Captain H.
Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm
Ropner, Major L.
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John
Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Macquisten, F. A.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Winby, Colonel L. P.


Maltland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-
Rye, F. G.
Windsor-clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Salmon, Major I.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Malone, Major P. B.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Wise, Sir Fredric


Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putnty)
Wolmer, Viscount


Margesson, Captain D.
Sandeman, A. Stewart
Womersley, W. J.


Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Sanders, Sir Robert A.
Wood, Rt. Hon. E. (York, W. R., Ripon)


Meller, R. J.
Sanderson, Sir Frank
Wood, E. (Chestr, Stalyb'dge&Hyde)


Meyer, Sir Frank
Sandon, Lord
Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich. W.).


Milne, J. S. Wardlaw-
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D
Wood, Sir S. Hill-(High Peak)


Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Savery, S. S.
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D.Mcl. (Renfrew, W)
Wragg, Herbert


Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Shaw, Capt. W. W. (Wilts, Westb'y)
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Moore, Sir Newton J.
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley



Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Shepperson, E. W.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES—




Colonel Gibbs and Major Hennessy.


Question put, and agreed to.

Original Question again proposed.

It being after a Quarter past Eight of the Clock, and there being Private Business set down by direction of the Chairman of Ways and Means under Standing Order No. 8, further Proceeding was postponed without Question put.

Orders of the Day — PRIVATE BUSINESS.

LONDON ELECTRICITY SUPPLY

(No. 2) BILL[Lords] (By Order).

As amended, considered

NEW CLAUSE.—(For protection of Metropolitan Borough of Stepney.)

(1) Nothing in the Section of this Act, of which the marginal note is "As to use of electricity supplied to certain bodies," shall
be deemed to allow electricity supplied by the company to the Port of London Authority to be used (save so far as may be hereafter authorised by Parliament or other competent authority) within any dock, or part of a dock, within the Metropolitan Borough of Stepney without the consent of the mayor, aldermen, and councillors of the said metropolitan borough, under their common seal, except for the purposes of haulage or traction one or lighting vehicles drawn or propelled by such haulage or traction on a railway owned or worked by the Port of London Authority, and for the purposes of signalling and working any appliances at passenger stations on any such railway on which electricity so supplied is used for haulage or traction.

(2) Nothing in this Section shall affect the giving of supplies to vehicles not running on rails or any use of any supply given to them.

(3) For the purpose of Section six of the Electric Lighting Act, 1909, nothing in this
Section shall be construed as a specific prohibition, within the meaning of Sub-section (4) of the said Section six, against the supply by the company of electricity within the said metropolitan borough or part thereof.—[MrScurr.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. SCURR: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

Lieut.-Colonel WATTS-MORGAN: I beg to second the Motion.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

NEW CLAUSE(Transfer to Joint Authority.)

(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or in the agreement set out in the Third Schedule hereto the Joint Electricity Authority may, on giving not less than three years' notice of their intention to exercise the power conferred upon them by this Section, require the London companies upon the terms hereinafter mentioned to transfer, and the companies shall transfer their undertakings to the Joint Electricity Authority on the thirty-first day of December, nineteen hundred and forty-one, and if the Joint Electricity Authority shall not give such notice as aforesaid they may, upon giving not 14366 than three years' notice, require the companies so to transfer their undertakings at any subsequent period of ten years up to and including the thirty-first day of December, nineteen hundred and sixty-one

(2) If the Joint Electricity Authority shall exercise the power conferred upon them under the preceding Sub-section to acquire the undertaking of the London companies before the thirty-first day of December, nineteen hundred and seventy-one, the terms upon which those undertakings shall be transferred to the Authority shall he those sot out in the agreement hereinbefore referred to, except that in the case of any lands, buildings, works, machinery, plant, mains, apparatus, and other like property (hereinafter called "the assets ") comprised in the undertakings of the London companies, and which shall have been in use or available and suitable for 160 at the date of the establishment of the Joint Electricity Authority, the Joint Electricity Authority shall pay to the London companies concerned a sum equal to the amount properly expended in providing such assets, as shown in the books and records of the companies, less the amount standing to the credit of Sinking Fund A, which, in accordance with the terms of such agreement, is to be provided by the London companies.—[Dr. Salter.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Dr. SALTER: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time".
I may say that there are a number of London Members who wish to have this Clause added to the Bill. At the present time the purchasing authority is the London County Council, and the earliest date on which the Council can exercise its power of purchase is 1921. The terms of purchase are all laid down specifically in the Electric Lighting Act of 1888. As a result of negotiations between the Electricity Commissioners, the London County Council and the companies, a definite scheme has been arrived at which is embodied in the present Bill. That scheme provides, in the first place, for the establishment of a joint electricity authority for London and the home counties; secondly, the purchasing rights of the London County Council are transferred to the newly constituted public authority; and in the third place, the date of the transfer of the company from private to public ownership is to be postponed from 1931 to 1971. Fourthly, the existing purchase terms, as specified in the Act of 1888, are to be entirely abrogated, and new purchase terms are to be substituted as laid down in the present Bill. The present Bill is to give statutory sanction to that scheme and to those conditions. We are asking, in this proposed new Clause, that the Joint Electricity Authority, the new purchasing body, should have power, after giving proper notice—that is to say, not less than three years' notice—to take over the companies, not in 1931, as the London County Council has power to do at the present time, not in 1971, as is proposed by the Bill, but that this new body should have the option of taking over the companies, either in 1941 or in 1151 or in 1961.
When we ask that, we are not asking at the same time that the purchase price should be varied, or rather, that the principle upon which these terms are based should be varied in any respect, but only that the necessary modifications should be made which are, of course, rendered necessary by the alteration in the time; and, if the Joint Electricity Authority does take over the companies at the earliest date specified in the new Clause, namely, 1941, it will mean that the companies will still have another 16 years to run from the present time. We suggest that 16 years is a quite sufficiently long period, for a number of reasons, amongst which are the following. The Electricity
Supply Acts, 1919 and 1922, most definitely contemplated that there should be set up one generating authority, and one generating authority only, for the whole of the County of London, in order to get the best load factor and the most economical distribution. These Bills which are now before the House violate that principle, and set up, not one generating authority, but three groups of generating authorities. There will be, when these Bill become law, no fewer than three separate generating authorities in the County of London. There will be Company Group No. 1, Company Group No. 2, and the group of the municipalities.
On this side of the House we say that that scheme defeats entirely the primary purpose of establishing a Joint Electricity Authority for London. We also say that such a regimecannot make for the most efficient and most economical methods. I feel quite certain that at some future date, probably within a few years, further legislation will be demanded which will unify and consolidate these three groups, and we are simply asking, in this proposed new Clause, that such unification and consolidation may take place, not 45 years hence, but 16 years hence, or 26 years hence, or 36 years hence. We are not even asking that it shall take place in 16 years; we are only asking that it may take place in 16 years, if the public body representing all the consumers in London and all the local authorities in London considers it desirable and necessary. We suggest that it is not a reasonable thing to postpone the possibility of public purchase for, practically speaking, another 50 years. There are certain to take place tremendous developments in electricity supply in the near future. The whole situation in the electrical world in general, and in the Metropolis in particular, is likely to change in the very near future, and we say there ought to be some provision in the Bill for the public getting the advantage of all these developments in the years ahead.
We are asking, therefore, that at 10-yearly intervals the public authority may have the chance of acquiring the electricity supplies of London, on proper terms, and, of course, after giving proper notice.
I suggest that it is practically certain that, long before the 45 years proposed in the Bill have run out, the people of this great city will demand that their services like the electricity service shall be in their own hands; and this Clause, which is an optional one, will save both the Joint Electricity Authority and this House a great deal of time and a great deal of trouble, and the public a great deal of expense in the way of further legislation, as compared with the provisions of the present Bill.
As a matter of fact, the companies recognised the reasonableness and equity of these proposals last year, and agreed in principle to accept them. I understand that it is now denied that any such agreement was arrived at, but I think there is indisputable evidence on that point. My hon. Friend the Member for Whitechapel (Mr. Gosling), when he was Minister of Transport, undertook negotiations with the companies on this point, and I understand quite specifically that he came to an arrangement in principle with the promoters of the Bill on this point, and that they were prepared to accept the period of 1941 as the first period for transfer. We also know that the first information that reached Members on this side of the House came through the Press. It came to us through the Lobby correspondents of this House, who actually received it themselves from the promoters, and then came to Members on this side and asked them for their comments for publication.
The then Member for South Hackney, Mr. Herbert Morrison was the most prominent opponent of the Bill at the time, and the first knowledge we had of the matter was when a Lobby correspondent came and asked his opinion, the correspondent having received the information from the promoters themselves. The hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Mr. Harris), who is a member of the London County Council, stated at the time in public in the London County Council that he had been approached by the hon. Member for the Drake Division of Plymouth (Sir A. Shirley Benn), who was, if not actually representing the promoters, at any rate acting as a friendly intermediary, and who informed him that, if he would move an Amendment in the sense of this proposed new Clause,
the promoters were willing to accept it. On these grounds, and on many others, we are perfectly certain on this side that a year ago the promoters of the Bill were perfectly prepared to accept this new Clause, and I would ask, if the proposal was reasonable and equitable then, and acceptable to the companies, what has happened in the meanwhile to alter the position and make it unreasonable or impossible at the present time As a matter of fact, the promoters have sent out a circular to all Members of the House within the last 24 hours, in which they say that the Clause which we are now moving would be unjust to the companies, and would destroy the whole structure of the Bill.

Mr. HANNON: Hear, hear! Quite right.

Dr. SALTER: The hon. Member opposite says, "Quite right," but the promoters of the Bill were prepared to accept this Clause a year ago. If it would destroy the whole structure of the Bill at the present moment, it would have destroyed the whole structure of the Bill 12 months ago, but there was no suggestion to that effect a year ago. The change is simply due to the altered political complexion of this House, and to no other reason. I come to the second Sub-section of our Clause, which is merely a consequential one dealing with the terms of acquisition, and, if hon. Members will read the terms they will see that the, terms of acquisition are, in principle, exactly the same as are set out in the Bill itself, and are only made necessary by the alteration in the time.
The seventh and eighth Clauses of the Third Schedule of the Bill lay down the terms which were agreed between the London County Council and the composite company which is representing all the companies at the present time, and those terms state that the company shall create two sinking funds, which are called respectively Sinking Fund A and Sinking Fund B, and that, when transference takes place in 1971, these two sinking funds shall provide the purchase price of the assets of the company. The object of these funds is a very excellent one, namely, to ensure that, when the transfer is effected, there shall be not much capital expenditure by the purchasing authority at the time; but, as
a matter of fact, the consumers throughout London have to provide these sinking funds through enhanced prices for their current. That is to go on over a long series of years, until, when the actual transfer takes place, there will be sufficient money in the fund to pay for all the assets, and the companies will then appropriate the accumulated money in the sinking funds and accept that as the purchase price. That is all laid down in the Bill itself.
Sinking Fund A provides for payment for the physical assets of the company which are actually in existence at the present time, or which will be in existence when the Joint Electricity Authority is duly constituted. This first Sinking Fund A provides for payment for the land, buildings, plant, mains, machinery, apparatus, and so on, which are at the present time in existence; and if the Bill passes in its present form, without the proposed new Clause, all these physical assets have to be handed over to the Joint Electricity Authority in 1971 absolutely free of cost, the purchase price in the meanwhile being made up in Sinking Fund A. Sinking Fund B is to provide in respect of the assets which are to be created hereafter, and these are to be paid for on the basis of cost of new capital properly expended, less depreciation at a rate fixed in the Bill. In our proposed new Clause, Sub-section (2) makes it clear that the terms of transfer shall be those set out in the Bill, that the principle in the agreed Schedule, that the company shall be compensated for all new capital by proper payments out of the two sinking funds, shall not be affected in any way, and that the physical assets—land, buildings, and so on—in use or suitable for use at the present time, shall be paid for at their original cost to the companies, less The amount standing to the credit of Sinking Fund A. Obviously, that is a thoroughly just and suitable arrangement, and I take it that the promoters would this object to it if it is laid down by this House that the time of transference should be earlier than 1971—that it should, in fact, he periodical.
The terms of transfer provide an arrangement which is good from the public point of view, and which, as it seems to me, is fair and just to the companies also, because they are not to be robbed, there
is to he no spoliation on behalf of the public on the one hand, and there is to be no exploitation of the public on the other. We say it is not right that a great city like London should have its hands tied for 50 years in regard to one of its vital public services, and one which involves the very life of the city. We ask this House, in view of the rapid changes which are taking place in electrical developments, and particularly in civic and communal needs at the present time, that the time of transfer should not be as long as 50 years, but that the public authority should have an option to take over these electrical undertakings in London either in 1941 or at 10-yearly intervals thereafter.

Mr. SNELL: I beg to second the Motion.
My hon. Friend has explained the Clause very lucidly and I do not propose to go over the ground he has traversed. Our desire is to make a plea to the House for this shorter period whereby the community may resume its control over what is an essential and may become a very vital service which it will need. We are asking the House to agree to this, and especially hon. Members opposite, because we are not asking them to sacrifice any political principle We are only asking them to consider the convenience of future generations —perhaps even our own generation—in allowing them to be able to assume control at an earlier period should they desire to do so. We hold that it is a foolish and probably also a very dangerous thing to legislate out of the hands of the public for a period approaching 50 years this vital service without at the same time providing frequent opportunities whereby it may he restored to the community. It has been said that inasmuch as the London County Council has agreed to the general provisions of the Bill, therefore it is entirely satisfactory. That argument will undoubtedly be impressive to those who do not know the London County Council, but to those of us who do it loses a great deal of its force. We feel that this attempt to legislate away powers which belong rightly to the community is making a gamble of our industrial future. We cannot possibly foresee what the needs of the community may be and how vital it may be for it
to have control of this very essential service. What the Bill really does is to jump the claim of a public electrical system. That is what it is designed for. That is why it has been pressed forward at this time—to get in on the ground floor before the community is ready to look after its own interests.
The previous electricity schemes have always aimed at this joint electrical authority, and the private companies who are promoting this Bill were always opposed to that joint electrical authority. The issue before us to-night is not that of a public service versus a private service, but a question rather of private enterprise in a very objectionable and dangerous way. The principle upon which we base our plea is that the community may require at any time, possibly within the next 10 years—indeed, it requires it now—freedom to control, for its own needs, these public services, and we have no sort of guarantee that these companies to whom we are to entrust these services will not restrict electrical development. We have no assurance that they will respond to the industrial needs, for though it may be the best company in the world, they are in business, not to provide a public service, but to conduct a commercial enterprise, the test of success being, not the way in which it serves the community, but the amount of money which that service will bring to themselves, and with a commodity which is so universally used and may be so vital to the community, it ought to be treated as we treat the health service, the education service, and the provision of water for the public. It is altogether too important to let pass out of the public hands unless at the same time we provide the means whereby at a short date we can resume control over that industry. When you cannot escape from a tyranny altogether the right thing is to make the period when you are compelled to bear it as short as possible, and we feel that inasmuch as the House is being asked to sacrifice no principle that it has previously affirmed, it might with a great deal of justice to the future, and with an appreciation of possible needs, grant this Clause.

Sir GEORGE HUME: The hon. Member has travelled rather more widely than the proposer of the Amendment, and I will crave leave to follow him shortly into the
fields into which he has strayed. He has talked as though something new was being done, something which will be creating precedent and setting up tyrannies. I think if we come down to the real facts of the case, we shall find that the picture is very different from that which he has sketched out. When the Electrical Supply Act was passed in 1888, the period given to the companies was one of something like 40 years. It was realised that it was necessary to give a considerable life, and it was towards the end of that 40 years that three years' notice had to be given in 1928, to come into operation in 1931, in case the London County Council desired to purchase the company. As a matter of fact, under the existing law it is open to the county council to refuse in 1928 to give the notice, and thereafter ten years' notice can be given. What will the result of that be? We have found in practice that the result has been that the companies have found themselves hampered and tied by this constant uncertainty as to what was to become of them at the period when the county council had to give its notice, and in all the discussions which have taken place over these electricity Bills, before their inception the county council has realised that., whatever arrangement is come to, it was vitally necessary to remove the uncertainties which had hampered development hitherto.
The hon. Member for Bermondsey (Dr. Salter) put his Amendment in a very moderate way. I have only knowledge of what the county council has done and what its motive has been, and I do not know what may have passed between the Minister of Transport and the companies. All I know is that I was approached personally from one quarter and another and urged to take a hand in negotiations, which I was told were going on, to urge the companies to agree to some sort of arrangement that we put forward As I had to point out, we had entered into an agreement which we had worked out in detail, which had resulted in the Bills that were before the House, and in honour we could not go back on those agreements. If the companies chose to come to an agreement it would be another matter, but at that time it was our duty to point out—this is what the hon. Member for Bermondsey has not really realised—that it would be impossible merely to make the Amendment
he suggests without having to make very radical Amendments in the Bill on its financial side. The difficulties which had to be faced in working out this agreement were extremely great. When we came to the sliding scale, we had t3 bring in experts, and in the provision of a sliding scale for electricity purposes—I think it is the first time anything of the sort has been done—they found extreme difficulty. I have the conviction that in working out these scales and the agreements generally we have reached a most equitable balance. The fight has been a very prolonged and difficult one, but I think it will probably hit the beam far closer than we had reason to fear we might do. It is strange that when proposals of this kind have been made, involving transfers such as are contemplated, and dealing with the companies' undertaking in the manner which is proposed, there has been no speculation on the Stock Exchange whatever, showing to my mind that the conclusions arrived at were extremely accurate.
If the Amendment were carried, the effect would be that the development once more of the company's areas would be hampered. They would not know from year to year what will be likely to happen to them at the end of the 10 years' period, and the great advantage we hope to obtain by having a long period of development would be lost. I do not think it is realised generally that the companies are not to be bought out at the end of that period. The buying out begins at once. They are being bought out through the whole of that period. I think hon. Members do not realise what a concession it was on the part of the majority on the London County Council that they should have been willing, in order to obtain an improvement in the supply conditions in London, to set up arrangements which make it absolutely certain that at the end of that period the whole undertaking is to pass under municipal control. That sacrifice was made willingly.

Mr. DALTON: Sacrifice of what?

Sir G. HUME: The wiping out of private enterprise in the London area at the end of the period. Hon. Members smile, but the sacrifice was a very real one on the part of the majority of the London County Council, who do not believe in municipal trading. They were
perfectly willing, in order to achieve what they recognised was a necessity for London, to throw their objection overboard and make it absolutely certain that the companies would pass over to the Joint Electricity Authority at the end of that period. Another sacrifice they were prepared to make was to transfer their purchase powers to the central authority as soon as that authority was set up and functioning. I hope the Amendment will not be agreed to. It will strike at the very root of the arrangement. There are two sinking funds. The idea of the first was to be able to pay off the whole assets now existing—what I may call the perishing assets—and the second sinking fund would be set up later on in order to cover the assets which would have to be taken over at the end of the period. If you are going to have only a 10 years' period, I do not see how that first sinking fund is going to work. You will certainly not have paid off the existing assets and there will have to be all sorts of financial adjustments made which, under this Amendment, could not possibly be carried out.

Dr. SALTER: What adjustments? Will the hon. Member specify?

Sir G. HUME: You are proposing in this Amendment to leave the general arrangements in the agreement standing. You wish to alter the period when the option can be exercised. If the option were to he exercised at the end of the first. 10 years, the result would be that you would not have paid off the cost of the assets, or the value of the assets, at the end of that period.

Dr. SALTER: Provision is made in the second Sub-section.

Sir G. HUME: The provision in the second Sub-section will be quite inadequate for the purpose. When I realise the difficulty of the fine adjustment which had to be made in negotiation, on the advice of our experts, I say that the House will be doing an extremely dangerous thing if they pass this Amendment, not knowing what the result of doing so will be.

Mr. HARRIS: I congratulate the hon. Member for Greenwich (Sir G. Hume) on
his return to this House. We all realise that, whatever we may think of his views, he has great knowledge and experience of municipal matters. My regret is the particular cause for which he is standing to-night. This is a reasonable Amendment. I remember that late last year the companies concerned were prepared—there is no secret in the matter—to accept this period as a settlement, and a just and fair settlement, of this long-outstanding problem.

Mr. HANNON: Will the hon. Member state the terms on which they were prepared to accept it?

Mr. HARRIS: I cannot say that I was a party to it, because I refused to be a party to it, but I was approached, if not officially, at any rate semi-officially, and told that the companies would be prepared to break the term at a period of every 10 years. They even went so far that I was asked to move an Amendment. It was said that honour would come to me in bringing this long and bitter 30-years' controversy to an end. I want to be quite frank with the House. I wanted to destroy the Bill altogether, and that being so I did not think that I was an appropriate agent to move the Amendment. That seems to me to indicate that the Amendment now moved, very wisely and very properly, in the terms that the companies were prepared to accept as a just settlement a few months ago, should be accepted. There does not seem to be any reason why the House should not support this Amendment now.

Mr. HANNON: When the hon. Member says that the companies were prepared to accept the arrangement to surrender, at intervals of 10 years, will he tell the House what were the terms on which they were prepared to surrender?

Mr. HARRIS: I was led to understand that they were the terms contained in the Bill.

Dr. SALTER: The terms in this Amendment.

9.0 P.M

Mr. HARRIS: I think I have good reason for saying that they were prepared to accept such a proposal. If this did not concern London I believe a soulotion of this kind would be carried by the home. When a similar Bill was brought forward to set up a large company for Essex, the
representatives of the County of Essex, irrespective of party, and not only the ordinary representatives but the Secretary of State for War, intervened and persuaded the House to throw out the Bill. Somehow or other in regard to London matters London Members are indifferent, and they have to go to Birmingham to find a champion of Bills of this kind. I am afraid that the hon. Member for Moseley (Mr. Hannon) may achieve his end. However, we are going to make an effort, and I think the effort embodied in this Amendment is sound. Unfortunately, the London representation of the party to which I belong is infinitesimal. If our representation had been larger, probably the fate of this Bill would be very different.
There is a very special reason why we should limit the period to ten years. The Minister of Labour announced to-day, and there have been similar announcements during the last few weeks on behalf of the Government, that the Government intend to deal with electricity on large national lines, that they have a big scheme in hand, on which they have been sitting for many weeks, and that by the autumn large scientific schemes will be brought forward dealing with electricity on such a large scale that it will be a cure for unemployment. We congratulate the Government from that point of view. Unfortunately, this Bill will prejudice London from reaping the advantage of any such scheme. If this Bill becomes law it will he impossible for London to come inside any large comprehensive scheme. London has a difficult enough fight for its industry at the present time. Is it right, just, and fair, to prejudice London for 40 years in its supply of electricity. It cannot be right and fair, and I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport, who understands this question, will realise that this problem cannot be dealt with in patches, hut that it must be dealt with on large lines, which will give a good diversity factor. If we are to get a scheme that will bring about the cheapest production of electricity, it must not be dealt with on a small scale but on a very comprehensive scale.
The Williamson Committee, which reported in 1918, came to the conclusion, after full consideration That, in the national interests, generating stations and main transmission lines ought to be,
as a general rule, publicly owned. They went on to say that it should be dealt with, rather, through the electricity authorities owning the generating plant. That Report was signed, not only by Sir Archibald Williamson, who was then a Member of this House, but also by the hon. Member for Greenwich. He seems to have overlooked the fact that he sat as a member of that expert Committee, and signed this Report. I want to have the generating stations publicly owned, and I suggest that the distribution should be in the same hands. The Report stated that the generating stations and main transmission lines aught, as a general rule, to be publicly owned. It is a different proposition whether the retail distribution of electricity should not remain in the hands of the local authorities and the companies, as at present. The hon. Member for Greenwich has accepted the principle that it is right, just and proper that the generating stations should be publicly owned, by having signed the report. I think that he will agree with me that the London County Council recognised a scheme on those lines only because of the difficulty of bringing in the various interests, the local authorities and different companies, and that they finally compromised and gave away on the present scheme.

Sir G. HUME: Not only have we provided for public ownership of generating stations, but for distribution as well.

Mr. HARRIS: In 40 years time when we shall all he dead. We were led to think by an expert Member of this House, who opposed the. Bill which I introduced, that one of the great objections to my Bill, which he had not read, was that there were great revolutionary changes taking place in electricity which would make the system of generation possibly entirely different, and far more efficient and that the same would apply to distribution. But London would be prejudiced, however great the improvements are, if the matter be put entirely into the hands of these three companies. Whatever the views of the House may be about electricity being privately or publicly owned, it is clear that the larger the area of supply and distribution the snore efficient your service awl the cheaper the price to the consumer, and the better he would be able to produce the electricity.
This particular scheme divides London into three systems, two different groups of companies and a set of local authorities who are going to have schemes of their own. That may be all right as a temporary measure, but is it wise to tie us to a scheme of this kind for 40 years? It is against industry and trade in London. Here is a reasonable way out of it. In 10 years' time, if these companies prove that they are giving an efficient service of cheap electricity, if they are selling their juice at a figure compared with that charged in the North of England and in other countries of Europe, then by all means let us renew their lease and let them go on with their good work. If, on the other hand, we find by experience that they are shortsighted in their policy, and that they refuse to bring their plant up to date to give us an efficient service, then we can make new arrangements to municipalise the generating stations or take over the whole organisation. The Committee which went into this matter deliberately came to the conclusion that the London County Council should be responsible for the supply of electricity in 1931. They say:
The Committee are of opinion that the best means of providing a supply of electrical energy in hulk for power and motive purposes is by one large inclusive scheme extending not over the County of London hut also the adjoining boroughs and districts".
and it recommended that the London County Council should do this work. The House has a right to come to the conclusion that it should settle the matter for the next few years, but it is not fair to prejudice the future. For that reason, as a safe compromise, we should make it possible for a future. authority to terminate the arrangement in 10 years' time.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of TRANSPORT(Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon): This Debate is, so to speak, a rehash of discussions which have been held, not in another place, but between two parties outside across the river. Both those parties are well versed in local government, and this House has always had such a respect for local government that I do not think it would be a wise precedent for us to butt in too much in the case
of arrangements made by different municipalities. Consequently, I do not intend to address my remarks to-night to the actual agreement which has been made by one of the great parties in the London County Council with regard to this matter. My promise to-night is to tell the House whether the agreement that has been come to is to the general advantage or disadvantage of the development of electricity throughout the country.
The hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Mr. Harris) told us that we were considering the whole question of the reorganisation of electricity, but I want to assure him that we look upon the establishment of a Joint Electricity Authority in London as absolutely basic to the real development of electricity. In the consideration of the great question of electricity we have found running up and down the country much stultification and lack of progress due to the threat of an undertaking being taken over, not at a particular date but because there is an option to take over at a certain date. When the hon. Member for East Woolwich (Mr. Snell) says that a private company will not develop its undertaking because it is going to look only to profit and not to the good of the community that comes in more and more if their tenure is an exceedingly small one. If there is an extended tenure, they can expend capital and put down lines with the view of getting back at a future date the money which they expend.
I maintain that the objections which the party opposite make to this proposal are more sentimental and political than real, because transcending the whole question is the question whether this authority is to be set up or not. To break the agreement made between the London County Council and the companies on such a basic question as this is to throw back into the melting pot the whole question which has been studied, and upon which agreement has been sought for the last 20 years. That is the great danger which I see in this particular Amendment. The Joint Authority is not a paper institution; it is a very real thing. It will be the first time that London electricity has ever been able to be worked together as a whole.
There is no use in trying to make it appear that London is not going to govern its own electricity. That is far
from what is going to happen. We have to remember, first, that the consumption of electricity in London is very much behind what it is in America. It is only 100 units per head, while to-day throughout America it is 500 units per head. I think we are justified in believing that within the next 15 years the consumption of electricity in London will equal the present rate of consumption in America, and everyone can see what enormous developments there must be in the generation of electricity in London in that particular time. Consequently, one can almost neglect the present installations and one must look to an expansion of the London electricity plant, as compared with that which exists to-day, to the extent of three times its present dimensions within the next 15 years. How is that going to be done if it is not within the province of this authority to co-ordinate exactly how that development shall take place? You must remember that the private companies have bound themselves to the technical schemes to be imposed by the joint authority, subject always to the approval of the Commissioners. You will see in the agreement that already what my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Bethnal Green wanted in his old compulsory powers has practically taken place. What I call the West End group has already segregated generation into one home. There you see the start of efficient generation. Undoubtedly the most efficient company will carry the base load, and other companies will carry the peak. That is the sort of development that will take place throughout London.
I am certain that when this authority is set up, and when the private companies and the municipalities get round a table together and are able to develop and talk these questions over, the animosity between the two branches cannot go on for ever. The power of imposing a technical scheme upon London transcends any other thing that we can do with regard to the reorganisation of electricity in London. As the thing is built up, so London will be able to look at the whole picture as one, and not as at present as two warring elements, the one against the other. In future, money which is expended by the private companies is to be controlled by the authorities. They will say how it is to be issued, whether in
debentures or in preference shares, or in ordinary shares. They will say for what it is to be used. I assure hon. Members opposite that this question of the setting up of an authority transcends all the other questions, such as the date when the thing shall be taken over. By the time 1941 is reached I am certain that London will have reached the stage of looking upon this development from the point of view of electricity as one whole and comprehensive problem, instead of as at present, one party waging war against another.

Mr. BARNES: I am afraid that the Parliamentary Secretary's speech has not conveyed very much satisfaction to the Members on this side of the House, because he has failed entirely to explain the point in the Mover's and the Seconder's remarks, namely, how it is that the present Government, with its added powers as far as its majority is concerned, has failed to obtain from these private companies the same terms as were offered to the Labour Government last year? That is a responsibility particularly on the Minister himself. As far as we can gather from fairly reliable authority, owing to the opposition that emanated from the London Members towards these Bills 12 months ago, the companies expressed their willingness to agree to this periodical purchase clause being embodied in these Bills. Since then we have had a change of Government, and those of us who represent London constituencies are entitled to ask the Ministry of Transport, which is assuming more and more power over London affairs, for an explanation. I was very interested in the Parliamentary Secretary's statement that it was not the province of Parliament to butt into municipal affairs. Yet the Ministry of Transport in particular has taken upon itself to butt into London affairs to an extent that we have not experienced before. In so far as that Department is so largely concerned in London municipal affairs, we are entitled to ask from the Government why it is that they have not seen that the concessions given or indicated 12 months ago are not embodied in the Bill to-day. The fact that they are not embodied in this Bill is significant for the history of these negotiations.
I listened with great interest to the hon. Member for Greenwich (Sir G. Hume) when he was outlining the views
of the London County Council. We all know that he can speak with some authority of their mind. What was the burden of his speech He emphasised the necessity of removing this feeling of uncertainty as far as the companies are concerned. Why should Parliament be concerned with the uncertainty involved in private shareholders in electricity in London? Despite the amusement of the hon. Member for South Battersea (Viscount Curzon)—whenever we enter on these Debates his concern seems to be to take away municipal powers in London—the primary duty of Parliament, of Members of Parliament who are elected to represent their constituents and not the shareholders of private companies, is not to consider the anxiety of the shareholders and the directors, but to try as far as possible to safeguard the communal interest of the people of London. I want to approach this question by indicating what this 40-years' concession means. We can best gauge in a broad sense what it means if we compare the development of electricity with the power and usage of coal in the 19th century. If Parliament had been farsighted enough at the beginning of the 19th century to take over the coal supplies of the country, industry, and particularly the coal-mining industry, would not have been in the parlous state that it is in today. The condition of the coal-mining industry in this country to-day is the result of the neglect of Parliament to foresee the development of the power and the influence that coal would exercise, not only in industrial life, but in the whole life of the community.
It is apparent to anyone who watches the development of electricity in the first quarter of the 20th century, that electrical power is going to exercise just as great an influence in the industrial, social and domestic life of the community in this century as coal did in the 19th century. We had Parliament in 1888 laying it down that in 1931 the people of London should resume municipal control of this important development. The private companies have had 40 years in which to carry out their part of the responsibilities to the people of London, and the Parliamentary Secretary's speech in itself is a condemnation of the extent to which they have performed their function, because he admits that London is behind every
great city in the world as far as this electrical development is concerned. There was no uncertainty as far as their period of life was concerned from 1888 to 1931. The uncertainty has cropped up only during the last two or three years, when they have been out for an extension of their powers. This Parliament ought to take into consideration the purpose and policy of previous Parliaments. In 1888 Parliament intended that this force of electricity should become municipal in 1931. In the 1908 Act Parliament went further. It recognised that, whilst this right of purchase was spread over a number, of local authorities, they very probably would impede the purchase of these rights by the community in 1931. Therefore in 1908 Parliament transferred those purchase rights from the local authorities to the London County Council. The larger municipal bodies would be more easily able to function in this direction. As far as the London County Council is concerned, as a representative of one of the areas outside the London County Council, I challenge the right of the London County Council to bargain away those powers vested in them by Parliament, not only in the interest of the people of London itself—the London County Council area—but the people of London in the larger areas. I consider it is a gross betrayal of the functions which Parliament conferred on the London County Council, that a Conservative majority there, finding itself entrenched for a period, not having been returned by the people of London on that issue, should upset its rights, and that Parliament should confirm it. Another point I wish the Minister to explain is this: In the Act of 1921 it was laid down that the Joint Electricity Authority for London should be set up. Why has it taken five years to establish the authority? Had the Joint Authority been appointed and set up before these private Bills were promoted, possibly they would never have got through. I venture to assert that the setting up of the authority has been deliberately held back until those private companies had staked out their claims, and were therefore practically independent of the operations of the Joint Electricity Authority.

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE-BRABAZON: The hon. Member is trying to make a case that it was possible to set up the
Joint Electricity Authority under the 1921 Act. No electricity authority could be set up except by agreement.

Mr. BARNES: That confirms my point. The private companies had steadily refused to agree until they got their bargain and their terms. That is the crux of the whole position. The bodies which have been opposing the setting up of the Joint Electricity Authority in London since 1921 have been the private companies. All the municipal authorities have agreed as to the necessity for this authority, but the private companies have steadily refused to agree to any scheme until, first of all, they promoted these- Bills extracting their pound of flesh from a Conservative majority on the London County Council, and Parliament is now being asked to confirm them. Parliament is confirming these Bills and giving powers against the wishes of the local authorities outside the London County Council. Under all the circumstances, with full knowledge of what is involved, those of us who represent the London Labour movement feel that it is our duty to tell hon. Members here to-night that we are not a party to this bargain. if ever London Labour is able to influence the power of Parliament, we shall influence Parliament and use that power to destroy this electrical trust monopoly at the earliest possible moment.

Mr. G. BALFOUR: The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down, in the earlier portion of his remarks, made an observation which I am sure will meet with the approval of Members in all parts of the House. He said that no Member of this House should come here representing the interest of shareholders or of any section, but representing wholly and solely his constituents who sent him into this House. With that I cordially agree. I am sure any Member of this House will be ill-equipped for admission to this Assembly if he adopted any other attitude towards his duty in this House. I think the hon. Gentleman is labouring under a strange misconception when he speaks of the London County Council bargaining away the rights and liberties of the people whom they represent. On the contrary, I think the London County Council have adopted a very wise and prudent course for the protection of the interests of the people who entrusted them with the great duties they have to
perform. Hon. Gentlemen will remember that until 1931 the companies were to remain in possession of the powers which had been granted to them under various Provisional Orders, and the London County Council had a right on that date to acquire these undertakings. In the interest of the public at large, the London County Council said to themselves, "Are we to wait until 1931 to exercise that option and meantime leave in a state of chaos and stagnation the development of the whole of the electricity supply of London? The hon. Gentleman must remember he is dealing with what is perhaps the most complicated problem any Member of this House could address the House upon. Are we to wait till 1931 before we begin to bring about unification?

Mr. BARNES: In 1920 the London County Council and the Joint Electricity Authority could have been set up and have had the power of purchasing the Barking electric power station—the best power station erected in London.

Mr. BALF0UR: What the hon. Gentleman says does not touch the question. The fact is that until 1931 this large number of stations was not purchasable, nor were the distribution services of these purchasable by the London County Council. I cannot imagine that the London County Council, in the exercise of their duties, would endeavour to do anything else than find a quick and rapid solution. They have made up their minds apparently that they would not desire to purchase in 1931. As I understand, they intimated to the various companies that they would not desire to purchase on that date and asked whether there were any means now of clearing up the situation? As I understand it, they had long discussions with all the companies interested. They battled for every point: they fought to get the hardest terms they could and I believe—and I speak with a certain amount of knowledge—the companies made in many cases very great, sacrifices in order to meet the views of the County Council and to co-operate with the County Council in finding a real and satisfactory solution of this problem. That is what I understand and I am associated, as many hon. Members know, with one of the two largest electrical companies in London. I am perfectly content to see this Bill thrown out. [HON.
MEMBERS: "Vote with us "] Oh, no. I say I am perfectly indifferent, and all the constituent companies know. The company I am connected with is in a different position, and it does not affect us if this Bill is not passed. I say to hon. Members —and I hope they will accept it from me as a considered opinion—I do not think those two Bills, in combination with the Order which the Minister will lay on the Table, is the ideal solution. But I do think this. It is the nearest thing you can get to it: to the drawing together for unification purposes of the whole of the

electricity services of London. The companies have accepted this solution as their contribution to the solution of this complicated problem, and I put that before hon. Members opposite, speaking with full knowledge, with absolute sincerity, and I think they will make a great mistake in the interest of the people of London if they do not allow these Bills to pass.

Question put, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

The House divided: Ayes, 105; Noes, 226.

Division No.104]
AYES.
[9.35 p.m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon.W. (Fife, West)
Heyday, Arthur
Shlels, Dr. Drummond


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Hayes, John Henry
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Attlee, Clement Richard
Hirst. G. H.
Sitch, Charles H.


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Smillie, Robert


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Smith, H. B. Lees-(Keighley)


Barr, J.
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Batey, Joseph
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Snell, Harry


Brlant, Frank
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Broad, F. A.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Spencer, G. A. (Broxtowe)


Bromley, J.
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Stamford, T. W.


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Kelly, W. T.
Strickland, Sir Gerald


Charleton, H. C.
Kennedy, T.
Sutton,J. E.


Cluse, W. S.
Lawson, John James
Taylor, R. A.


Compton, Joseph
Lee, F.
Thomson, Trevelyan (Middiesbro. W.)


Connolly, M.
Livingstone, A. M.
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Dalton, Hugh
Lowth, T.
Thurtle, E.


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Mackinder, W.
Tinker, John Joseph


Day, Colonel Harry
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon.C. P.


Dennison, R.
March, S.
Viant, S. P.


Duncan, C.
Montague, Frederick
Wallhead, Richard C.


Forrest, W.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Warne, G. H.


Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.
Murnin, H.
Watson, W. M.(Dunfermline)


Gibbins, Joseph
Oliver, George Harold
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D.(Rhondda)


Gillett, George M.
Palin. John Henry
Whiteley, W.


Gosling, Harry
Paling,W.
Wignall, James


Graham,D. M.(Lanark, Hamilton)
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Greenall, T.
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Williams, Dr. J. H.(Llanelly)


Greenwood, A.(Nelson and Colne)
Potts, John S.
Williams, T. (York,Don Vally)


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Richardson, R. (Houghton.le-Spring)
Wilson,C. H.(Sheffield,Attercliffe)


Groves, T.
Riley, Ben
Wilson. R. J.(Jarrow)


Grundy, T. W.
Ritson, J.
Windsor, Walter


Guest, Dr. L. Haden (Southwark,N.)
Robertson, J.(Lanark, Bothwell)
Wright, W.


Hall, F. (York, W. R.,Normanton)
Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W. R., Elland)
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Salter, Dr. Alfred



Hardie, George D.
Scrymgeour, E.
TELLERSFOR THE AYES.—


Harris, Percy A.
Scurr, John
Mr. A. Barnes and Mr. T. Henderson


NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Briggs, J. Harold
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.


Ainsworth, Major Charles
Brittain, Sir Harry
Cooper, A. Duff


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Cope. Major William


Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cente'l)
Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Cooper, J.B.


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Brown, Maj. D. C. (N'th'I'd, Hexham)
Courtauld, Major J. S.


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon.Wilfrid W.
Brown, Brig.-Gen.H.C.(Berks,Newb'y)
Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.


Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.
Burman,J. B.
Crooke,J. Smedley (Derltend)


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)


Barnston, Major Sir Harry
Caine, Gordon Hall
Cunliffe, Joseph Herbert


Beamish, Captain T.P. H.
Campbell, E. T.
Curtis-Bennett, Sir Henry


Beliairs, Commander Canyon W.
Cassels, J. D.
Curzon, Captain Viscount


Berry, Sir George
Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester,City)
Davidson,J.(Hertf'd, Hemel Hempst'd)


Betterton, Henry B.
Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Davies, A. V. (Lancaster, Royton)


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)


Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)
Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Dawson, Sir Philip


Blundell, F. N.
Christie, J. A.
Dixey, A. C.


Bourne,Captain Robert Croft
Churchman, Sir Arthur C.
Doyle, Sir N. Grattan


Brass, Captain W.
Clarry, Reginald George
Drewe, C.


Brassey, Sir Leonard
Clayton, G. C.
Eden,Captain Anthony


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Cobb, Sir Cyril
Edmondson, Major A. J.


Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)
Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)
Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)


Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith
King, Captain Henry Douglas
Ropner, Major L.


Everard, W. Lindsay
Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. SirPhilip
Ruggles-Brlse, Major E. A.


Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Little,Dr. E. Graham
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Falls, Sir Charles F.
Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)
Salmon, Major I.


Fielden, E. B.
Loder,J. de V.
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Fleming, D. P.
Looker, Herbert William
Sandman, A. Stewart


Ford, PJ.
Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Sanders, Sir Robert A.


Forestier-Walker, L.
Lumley,L. R.
Sanderson, Sir Frank


Fremantle, Lt.-Col.Francis E.
Lynn, Sir Robert J.
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.


Gadle, Lieut.-Col. Anthony
MacAndrew, Charles Glen
Savery, S. S.


Ganzonl, Sir John
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Shaw, Lt.-Col.A. D. Mel. (Renfrew W)


Gee, CaptainR.
Macintyre, Ian
Shepperson, E. W.


Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham
McLean, Major A.
Simms,Dr. John M.(Co. Down)


Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Macmillan, CaptainH.
Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's Univ., Belief)


Goff, Sir Park
Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm
Skelton, A. N.


Gower, Sir Robert
Maitland, SirArthur D.Steel-
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kincidlne, C.)


Grace, John
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Greene, W. P. Crawford
Malone, Major P. B.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Grentell, Edward C. (City of London)
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
Spender Clay, Colonel H.


Grotrian, H. Brent
Margesson, Captain D.
Stanley, Lord(Fylde)


Guinness, Rt. Hon. WalterE.
Meyer, Sir Frank
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)


Gunston, Captain D. W.
Milne,J. S.Wardiaw-
Stott,Lieut.-Colonel W.H.


Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Strickland, Sir Gerald


Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.


Hammersley, S. S.
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Harland, A.
Moore, Sir Newton J.
Sykes, Major. Gen. Sir Frederick H.


Hartington, Marquess of
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)
Nall, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Joseph
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Nelson, Sir Frank
Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell.(Croydon, S.)


Haslam, Henry C.
Neville, R. J.
Tinne, J. A.


Hawke, John Anthony
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Henderson, Capt, R. R.(Oxf'd, Henley)
Nuttall, Ellis
Waddington, R.


Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootie)
Oakley, T.
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford,Luton)
Ward,Lt.Col.A. L.(Kingston-on-Hull)


Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Oman, Sir Charles William C.
Warrender, Sir Victor


Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William
Waterhouse, CaptainCharles


Henniker-Hughan, Vice-Adm. Sir A.
Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Watts, Dr. T.


Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Peto, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Wells, S. R.


Hilton, Cecil
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)
Wheler, Major Granville C. H.


Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Phillpson, Mabel
White, Lieut.-Colonel G. Dalrymple


Holland, Sir Arthur
Pitcher, G.
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


Homan, C. W. J.
Pliditch, SirPhilip
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Hope. Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Preston, William
Winby, Colonel L. P.


Howard, Captain Hon. Donald
Price, Major C. W. M.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney,N.)
Radford, E. A.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Hudson, R.S. (Cumberland, Whiteh'n)
Rains, W.
Wise, Sir Fredric


Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer
Ramsden, E.
Womersley, W. J.


Hurd, Percy A.
Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)
Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.).


Hutchison, G.A.Clark (Mldl'n & P'bl'S)
Reid, D. D. (County Down)
Wood, Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)


lliffe, Sir Edward M.
Remnant, Sir James
Wragg, Herbert


Jacob. A. E.
Rice, Sir Frederick
Yerburgh, Major Robert DT.


Jephcott, A. R.
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)



Kennedy, A. R.(Preston)
Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)
TELLERSFOR THE NOES—.




Sir George Hume and Mr. Hannon.

CLAUSE 9.—(Confirmation of agreements between company and certain ponies.)companies.

Amendments made:

In page 8, line 25, after the word "shall" insert the words "subject to the provisions of this Act."

In line 26, after the word "any "insert the words "conveyance or."

In line 29, after the word "such" insert the words "conveyance or."

In line 37, after the words "until a" insert the words "conveyance or."

In page 9, line 1, leave out the word "lease" and insert the words "conveyance or lease as the case may be."

In line 2, leave out the word "lease" and insert the words "conveyance or lease as the case may be."

In line 4, after the word "section" insert the words "or under other powers of this Act"?—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Mr. BARNES: On a point of Order. Is it quite in order that all these Amendments should be submitted at this stage, without notice having been given to the House?

Mr. SPEAKER: There was notice on the Paper to-day that Amendments were to be proposed by the promoters, and the Amendments could have been seen by anybody who was interested. They are only drafting Amendments.

CLAUSE 10,—(Confirmation of agreement between the company and the council.)

Mr. DALTON: I beg to move, in page 9, line 11, at the, end to insert the words
Provided that the dividends to be allowed after the thirty-first day of December, nineteen hundred and thirty-one, on ordinary capital subscribed in cash or issued for an equivalent consideration and on ordinary capital created by the capitalisation of free reserves shall be five per cent. and not seven per cent. as allowed for in paragraph 2 of the Schedule to the said agreement.
This Amendment is concerned solely with the dividends to be allowed to the company on ordinary capital after 31st December, 1931, and it proposes that for 7 per cent. there should be substituted 5 per cent. I submit that it is an exceedingly reasonable Amendment. The principle has already been admitted that some limit must be placed upon the depredations to be allowed to private enterprise in the London area, so far as electricity is concerned. The only question is, that being admitted, what limit shall be placed upon these depredations? I submit that 5 per cent. would very adequately satisfy the equities of the case. in the first place, the companies at the present time are paying dividends of 10, 12, and, I think, 15 per cent., and there is going to be no cheek upon that until after 1931, hence, upon the principle of averaging, it would not he unreasonable that they should cut down a hit after 1931.

Mr. ERSKINE: Hear, hear!

Mr. DALTON: I am glad to have the support of the hon. Member for St. George's, who is an expert on these matters.

Mr. ERSKINE: I do not agree with you at all.

Mr. DALTON: I hope yet to be able to convince the hon. Member. A further point that. I want to submit is that the 7 per cent. or the 5 per cent. as the ease may be, is not going to be a maximum at all. As a matter of fact, there is to be an addition made to it in respect of any reduction of charges to the consumer, and we do not yet know how great those reductions may be. Further, there is a capitalisation of reserves, which will also
improve the position of the shareholders. Having put these preliminary points, I should like to argue that 5 per cent, is an exceedingly reasonable rate of interest, even if it were to be a maximum. It is not going to be a maximum, as I have shown, but even if our Amendment were accepted—and I am sure the hon. Member for Moseley (Mr. Hannon), who always speaks, in these cases, as theadvocatus diaboli,will have no difficulty in accepting it.

Mr. HANNON: I am the advocate of the angels.

Mr. DALTON: The distinction between the two positions always depends on the point of view, but I have confidence that the hon. Member will be quite prepared to accept this Amendment on behalf of the companies.

Mr. HANNON: He will not.

Mr. DALTON: I really hope he will, when I point out that 5 per cent. is all that is being paid now on Government securities, and that this is going to be just as secure (now that the previous Amendment has been rejected) as British War Loan itself. If 5 per cent. is good enough for British War Loan, it will surely be good enough for the London Electrical Trust. We have been hearing from other sources—we heard it from the Minister of Transport and from the Minister of Labour—of the tremendous developments that are going to take place in electrical supply. The Minister of Labour took the view that that was the great way in which unemployment was some day going to be solved. That holds out great prospects of increased profitableness and an increased volume of business for this Electrical Trust. They are perfectly secure, and, that being so, I think we may treat this as being equivalent to a gilt-edged security. In fact, I might go further, for only a few days ago in this House, when teachers' superannuation was under consideration, the President of the Board of Education suggested that 3½ per cent. was quite enough to be paid as the rate of accumulation in that regard—I know this is a point of view which will have some weight with hon. Members opposite—and he said that what he was aiming at was getting a secure rate of interest which would not have to be
altered, but would be appropriate for a long period ahead. We have to legislate here also for a long period ahead, namely, to 1971, and if 3½ per cent. is good enough as the rate of interest in teachers' superannuation, I submit that 5 per cent., or per cent. more, surely ought to be good enough for the London Electrical Trust. I am no lover of long-winded orations, either from Front Benches or Back Benches. I have put my points, I hope, with reasonable brevity, and I beg to move the Amendment.

Mr. GILLET: I beg to second the Amendment.
In entering into this new phase in connection with London electricity, we have to make a new arrangement with the companies, and one of the most difficult things in connection with any semi-public company, like an electricity or gas company, is so to arrange the sliding scale that any measure of justice shall be done to the consumers of the light and those who are shareholders in the company. I know very well that the London County Council and the companies spent months in trying to arrange a sliding scale that would in any way seem to be acceptable to both parties, but my first objection to the whole of the arrangement is that I believe it is altogether impossible to arrange sliding scales of this kind, and to know what actually will be the financial outcome of the arrangements. Both parties may find the results very different from those which they are expecting.
When the hon. Member for Moseley (Mr. Hannon) was addressing the House on the Second Reading of the Bill, he said that we, on this side, imagined that the companies were trying to exploit the public, instead of which, in point of fact, he said, many of the companies would have been better off if they had sold their undertakings in 1921. I have not the remotest idea what the hon. Member meant, or what opportunity the companies ever had to sell their undertakings in 1921, but I suggest that it is advisable, when you are connected with Birmingham, at any rate to make sure of your facts before you deal with London problems. As a matter of fact, if he has read the circular which was doubtless sent to him, as to other hon. Members, by the companies, he will have noted that it states distinctly that purchase could not have been exercised until
1931. However, I pass over that point, but when the hon. Member accuses us of saying that the companies are trying to exploit the public, 1 think probably he is expressing our views to a very great extent, because that is rather what we expect all the time that the companies are attempting to do.
One of the things about which we cannot be certain, and about which we know nothing, is the estimated saving that will be made when these companies are, to a certain extent, working in unison with one another instead of in the way in which they are working to-day —the savings by amalgamation—and although I think the Minister was unduly optimistic when he held out the idea to the House that in some way we had arrived at a uniform scheme of working in London, I look upon it that, instead of carrying out the idea of having one central body, you really are only arriving at a position where you will have three groups of bodies working in London, with a certain amount of control, according as the companies are willing to receive it, from the central body. However that may be, the point is, What advantage is there going to be to electricity financially in London by the uniform working, and what are the savings going to amount to? It is a very important point, because upon it one aspect of an increased dividend of 7 per cent. is going to depend. The next point is that the 7 per cent. will be paid not only on the ordinary capital of the companies. The total capital altogether is something like £21,000,000 at the present time. I am not suggesting that 7 per cent. will he paid on all that—the 7 per cent. is to be paid on the ordinary stock—but there is another item, in regard to which I put a question to the Minister two or three months ago. I asked him what the reserves were that were to be capitalised, and he was unable to give me any definite answer as to what was the sum of money upon which the 7 per cent. has to be paid.
If you take an extreme case, it is hardly necessary to point out, when you talk about a dividend as being a certain fixed figure, that supposing you have a company with a capital of &£100,000, paying 10 per cent to-day, and you allow it to capitalise its reserves, which happen to
be another £100,000, and it then pays 5 per cent., the result to the shareholders is exactly the same as it was before. If, therefore, when you say that the dividend is going to be 7 per cent. you cannot at all tell, and even the Minister cannot tell, how much the reserves are going to amount to from which the 7 per cent. is to be paid, well, we really at the present time do not know what the dividend is really going to be. Nobody except those concerned with the finances of the companies know in the slightest what the actual rate of interest is going to be. It is said to be 7 per cent., but 7 per cent. on a larger sum, needless to point out., is not the same thing as having a higher dividend.
Therefore, for these reasons, when we look at these unknown factors on which really the House has not been informed, and on which neither the representatives of the company, nor the hon. Member for Greenwich (Sir G. Hume) who speaks for the London County Council, nor the Minister has been able to give us any information, or even attempted to do so, I cannot imagine that the House will be surprised if we on this side are sceptical about the whole of this sliding scale, about the scheme put forward, or the proposals now being laid before the House. After all, as my hon. Friend has said, 5 per cent. is a reasonable figure for an investment of this kind, and if 1 read aright this scale, we are going a good way towards guaranteeing a fixed dividend for these companies. Loans are being floated on the market at the present time. Only yesterday on the London money market there was a New Zealand loan floated. I venture to assert that the securities of these great companies, these electrical companies in London, after all these matters have gone through, will not be better than the New Zealand stock.

Sir FREDRIC WISE: On which the underwriters have been left with 85 per cent. !

Mr. GILLETT: I am perfectly well aware of that, but I might remind the hon. Member that I do not think the figure works out at 5 per cent. to the purchaser. The figure, actually, of New Zealand stocks works out at the rate it was offered at just under 5 per cent. I was allowing for that, of which I was perfectly well aware. I venture to suggest that, allowing for that, 5 per
cent. is the figure that, probably, New Zealand would have been wise to have placed it on the money market at. However that may be, New Zealand people are giving the hon. Member for Ilford no chance of getting more than 5 per cent. If the economies work out satisfactorily, it is not limited to 5 per cent., but may be rather more than that. Allowing for that, I think the hon. Member will agree that this is an excellent investment, and that 5 per cent. is a very reasonable figure. Under these circumstances, there is no reason why the people that consume electricity in London should be asked to pay 2 per cent. more than 5 per cent. for lending money to these companies. I therefore beg to second the Amendment.

10.0 P.M.

Mr. HANNON: One need not, perhaps, recall in the present House that hon. Members opposite have done everything possible to embarrass during the past two years these proposals for electrical supply, and Amendments have been put down to this Bill to-night on Report. These are part of the process of preventing these Bills becoming law, and so enabling a great scheme of cheap and abundant electricity for the people of London being developed at the earliest possible period. The hon. Member for Peckham (Mr. Dalton) with that benevolent interest which he always takes in people on this side of the House said that we had to go to Birmingham to get somebody to be the protagonist of this Measure for London. I accept with great interest the kindly reference of my hon. Friend on the other side of the House, but I venture to suggest to him that this is not a mere matter for the City of London. It interests the whole country.
In moving this Amendment to limit the rate of interest which has been done by the hon. Member in his own admirable and super-critical way, the hon. Member for Peckham quite left out of account the number of people in this country who have borne the entire burden of the promotion of all this quality of enterprise—that is to say, the shareholders and the promoters of the schemes. If London was capable of dealing with these proposals of getting control of its own electricity supply in 1931, why does it not come forward to this House with a scheme by which it can do so? As my hon. Friend knows perfectly well, the
London County Council is not prepared to undertake that responsibility—the enormous responsibility of the undertaking promoted by private companies who for years have been devoting themselves to the development of the utility services, and to whose services London owes an immense debt of gratitude. The object of this Amendment by hon. Members opposite is in accordance with the principle which they have professed in this House in many Debates. It does not matter what subject comes before us. We always have suggestions from hon. Members opposite that the only way to manage it successfully is to put it under the control of the State. Can any hon. Member opposite suggest one single State enterprise in this country, or anywhere else, that has been a real and substantial success?

Mr. THURTLE: On a point of Order. Are we discussing the Amendment as to the rate of interest to be paid or the much larger question?

Mr. SPEAKER: We are certainly not discussing nationalization.

Mr. HANNON: I really was not going to discuss that question. I was merely pointing out the fact that on every question that comes before this House as between private enterprise and State control, hon. Members opposite are prepared to introduce a proposal which will bring the enterprises under the control of the State. The real object of the Amendment in limiting the rate of interest bas exactly the same purpose. My hon. Friend the Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Mr. Harris), who is one of the outstanding authorities in this House on all economic questions, who has a monopoly of all the wisdom that can be produced in this House in these days, is prepared to offer a solution on every question. He is a Member of the London County Council. He has had before him the importance of limiting the rate of interest paid on the reserves of these companies. Has he put forward one single proposal during that time to deal with this proposition? Not a single one. The whole series of obstacles that have been brought for ward against these Measures is part and parcel of the policy of hon. Gentlemen opposite.
I see on the Front Bench opposite my hon. Friend, the most kindly and most
generous of men, the late Minister of Transport (Mr. Gosling). There is no Member of this House who is so kindly intentioned in every respect as my hon. Friend the late Minister of Transport. Last Session, when these. Measures were before the House, the late Minister of Transport did his best to secure their passage through the House.

Dr. SALTER: With modifications.

Mr. HANNON: I will deal with the modifications in one minute. The hon. Gentleman was not particularly frank about modifications when he was stating his case to the House on the first Amendment this evening. My hon. Friend the late Minister of Transport did his best last year to bring about an understanding between the London County Council and the private companies, and his friends behind him, with their views as expressed in this Amendment, limiting the rate of interest which private undertakings are to get on reserves of capital, pressed my hon. Friend so much that he was forced to withhold the passage of these Bills, and that kept so many projects from being developed and so many hundreds of people out of employment. That was because the hon. Members behind him wanted to have a nationalised scheme. If the late Minister for Transport had had his way, the House would not have been troubled with these Bills this Session. They would have become law in the last Session, and we should not have been dealing with this Amendment moved by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Peckham, limiting the maximum percentage payable. The whole story of the development of electricity supply in London is a story of the activity of private enterprise, in doing everything it possibly could to provide this service for the people of this city.

Dr. SALTER: And we pay a higher price in the London area than anywhere else.

Mr. HANNON: My hon. Friend is most competent to make anea partestatement, but he did not, in the speech that he made, produce one single argument in support of that contention. This is a suggestion to limit the return on private capital invested in a great enterprise to which considerable risks are attached: because nobody knows what the future possibilities of electric expansion may
be. Why should hon. Gentlemen opposite do that when they are not prepared to risk anything themselves? Why do not the Labour party on the London County Council come down with some counter proposal, so that public control or municipal control could be exercised by the London County Council taking its share of responsibility for the development a these schemes? Is there one single hon. Gentleman opposite who is a member of the County Council, and who will vote to-night for this Amendment to limit interest on capital, who will go to the London County Council with a practical scheme to deal with this great question?
The task of building up in London great schemes for the supply of abundant and cheap electricity for lighting and power purposes rested in the beginning on the shoulders of private enterprise. Hon. Members opposite desire to cripple the possibility of private enterprise discharging its great purpose. That is the purpose of hon. Gentlemen opposite. I contend that all these Amendments, all these obstacles placed in the way of a development of this scheme—a scheme which has been subjected to more close and intimate examination by a series of public inquiries than any scheme ever submitted to the people of London—are merely pretexts to get national or State control of great public utility undertakings. I hope the House will reject the Amendment and give private enterprise a full opportunity, by a reasonable remuneration for services rendered, of continuiny to do the great services in the interests of the people of London which it has been doing for so many years past.

Mr. ATTLEE: It is a great pleasure to hear the hon. Member for Moseley (Mr. Hannon) on this subject, because he has such a remarkable ability to speak for quite a considerable time without dealing in any way with the merits of the Amendment under review, and without showing any knowledge whatever of the problem of London's electricity supply. I take it that is why he, from, shall we say, a rival metropolis, was selected to speak. He has not put up any argument on the merits of this Amendment. He has not suggested that if this limitation were imposed it would do anything to cripple these undertakings. He told us that private enterprise was respon
sible for electricity in London, quite omitting to mention, though he was rather strong upon the question of frankness, that in fully one-half of the area of London electricity supply has been developed by municipalities, and that the capital burden of these municipal undertakings is ever so much smaller than in the case of the companies. One of the crippling factors in modern industry to-day is the over capitalisation of industry by those people who, we are told, took such a wonderful risk. Electricity supply may have been a risky business some time ago. The hon. Member taunted us by saying we never risked our money. The people of Stepney risked their money in building up a great electricity undertaking, and so did the people of Poplar and West Ham. They raised their capital cheaply, and their capital burdens are slight. To-day, when electricity is a, well-established thing, is there any reason for paying a huge ransom to private enterprise in what— as hon. Members on this side have said—is now a gilt-edged security? I want to see the purpose of the Electricity Act carried out. We want a cheap and abundant supply of electricity for London—not only abundant, but also cheap. It is an important thing for the manufacturer that he should get cheap power, and it is important for all of us to get cheap light.
I hoped when the hon. Member rose that he was going to contribute from those great corporations, on whose behalf he is speaking, towards helping the Chancellor of the Exchequer out of some of the difficulties that have fallen upon his head as a result of his unfortunate Budget. I believe the hon. Member opposite is not wholly unconnected with the great Federation of British Industries. I believe, judging from the Press, that manufacturers and business people are seriously upset at the heavy imposts—the last straw on the camel's back—that have been brought forward in the Budget. Here is a chance to give, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer put it, some "offset" with which they can pay, to give to people who are in the company's area cheap power as an offset to those burdens on industry. Let us do it, on that beautiful system of offsets that the Chancellor brought before us, at the expense of therentier,who has been so particularly helped in the Budget.
I will deal with only two more points. First of all, I think it peculiar that from the other side, which contains the great advocates of Empire, should come the taunt in regard to a great British Dominion. I think that taunt should be. directed against a great many of those people in the City who will not put up the money to develop one of our great Dominions simply because they cannot extract the amount of interest they would like. The second taunt made is why did not the London County Council do this? Unfortunately, the present majority on the London County Council are not Conspicuous for doing things for the public benefit. Not only do they oppose municipalisation, but they do not always support private enterprise. They considered the other day the question of motor boats on the Thames, and the majority on the London County Council turned down that project. Meanwhile I ask the House to support this principle, in order to bring relief to those unhappy districts in London who are suffering from their shortsighted folly in the handing over of their areas in the past for exploitation to companies, instead of producing their own supply of electricity, and keeping it in public hands for the public benefit.

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE-BRABAZON: I do not intend to go into the larger questions which have been discussed to-night and I shall simply confine my remarks to the question of 7 per cent. and 5 per cent. With regard to what has been said about the capital may I point out that the money is already there and when it it put back into the enterprise it must rank as money put into the concern. The hon. Member for Peckham (Mr. Dalton) does not admire the sliding scale because he says it would give too much profit over and above the 7 per cent. I will try and explain what is meant by this sliding scale. What is intended is that of any surplus in any year six-eighths should go back to the consumers, one-eighth to the shareholders, and the other one-eighth to the staff. This occurs from year to year and the amount is never a big one. I think there should always be some incentive towards a reduction of the cost of electricity and towards economy and general efficiency. With regard to the new capital coming in, I think it is unwise to put on a limitation of 5 per cent.
because we want more capital invested, not only in these undertakings in London but throughout the whole of England.
In the London scheme, when new money is to be expended, first of all the scheme upon which it is asked for has to be approved by the Authority, and, when the scheme has been so approved, the way in which the money is to be asked for from the public is to be decided by the Commissioners. They can allot hew much can be asked for by debentures; how much by preference shares, and how much by ordinary shares, and, if the present 7 per cent. stood, the average of new money would come out at about 61 per cent.; but if such a situation should arise that there should be that confidence in electrical undertakings which has been foreshadowed, then the ordinary shares could be issued at a premium, in which ease the companies would get the extra money, but the yield would be reduced from 7 per cent, to whatever figure might be represented by the premium at which the shares were issued. If however, it were made 5 per cent., and if the trust in electrical undertakings went down, it would not be possible to do the reverse, that is to say, the ordinary shares could not be issued at a discount, because that is prohibited by law. Consequently, I do not fear the 7 per cent.; I do not think it is going to be any handicap. We want a lot of money, and we want it to be an attractive investment to the public., because, like hon. Members opposite, we believe that a large part of the prosperity of the country, not only in London, but throughout the whole of England, is dependent upon the development of electricity.

Captain GARRO-JONES: As a representative of a London constituency, I cannot let this occasion pass without saying a few words in opposition to these Bills for bargaining away the rights of electricity consumers in London.

Mr. SPEAKER: We have not arrived at the Third Reading yet. We are on the Amendment.

Captain GARRO-JONES: The hon. Member for Moseley (Mr. Hannon). who I notice, is not now present, said that these electricity companies were running a very big risk. By the way he talked one might have supposed that this was a big "death or glory" oil-drilling adventure. He altogether left out of
account the fact which had been previously stated by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport, who pointed out that the present electricity consumption in London was only 100 units per head of the population, whereas in the United States, over the whole country, industrial and agricultural, it is 500 units per head. It is pretty obvious, in my opinion, that there 's great scope for increase and cheapening of production, and within a very short time this reduction of dividend to 7 per cent. will have proved to be an illusory concession. If any further evidence were needed of the very little risk that is being run by these companies, we have only to point to the very successful schemes of electricity which are being run in London under municipal enterprise. Even the much-maligned and much-despised financiers of Poplar have been able to do far better than the best private enterprise, as far as electricity is concerned.
Another point on which I am entirely unable to reconcile the speech of the hon.

Division No. 105.]
AYES.
[10.25 p.m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Hayday, Arthur
Scurr, John


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Hayes, John Henry
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Attlee, Clement Richard
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Sltch, Charles H.


Baker, I. (Wolverhampton, Bliston)
Hirst, G. H.
Smillie, Robert


Barr, J.
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Batey, Joseph
Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Smith, H. B. Lees-(Keighley)


Broad, F. A.
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Smith, Rennle (Ponistone)


Bromley, J.
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Snell, Harry


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Charleton, H. C.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Stamford, T. W.


Cluse, W. S.
Jones, T. 1. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Sutton, J. E.


Compton, Joseph
Kelly, W. T.
Taylor, R. A.


Connolly, M.
Kennedy, T.
Thurtle, E.


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Lee, F.
Tinker, John Joseph


Day, Colonel Harry
Livingstone, A. M.
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.


Dennison, R.
Lowth, T.
Viant, S. P.


Duncan, C.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)
Wallhead, Richard C.


Forrest, W.
Mackinder, W.
Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen


Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Warne, G. H.


Gibbins, Joseph
March, S.
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermilne)


Gillett, George M.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Gosling, Harry
Murnin, H.
Whiteley, W.


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Oliver, George Harold
Wignall, James


Greenall, T.
Palln, John Henry
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Paling, W.
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Lianelly)


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Groves, T.
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Grundy, T. W.
Potts, John S.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Windsor, Walter


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Rlley, Ben
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Hardle, George D.
Ritson, J.



Harland, A.
Robertson, J. (Lanark, Bothwell)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Harris, Parcy A.
Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W.R., Elland)
Mr Dalton and Mr. A. Barnes.


Hastings, Sir Patrick
Salter, Dr. Alfred





NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Barnett, Major Richard W.


Ainsworth, Major Charles
Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.
Barnston, Major Sir Harry


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Baird, Rt. Hon. Sir John Lawrence
Beamish, Captain T. P. H.


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W,

Member for Moseley is the fact that only this afternoon the Minister of Transport was telling us that the Government contemplate, as a great scheme for the improvement of the unemployment figures, the development of electricity. I consider that to make these concessions in advance of this Government scheme is to tie their hands, and that they will find, when producing their general scheme, that they will be unable to carry out their proposals. This is a great day for the hon. Member for Moseley. He is to be congratulated upon it, because, in the years to come, as the dividends will be going up and the electricity supplies depreciating in efficiency, he will be fêted and banqueted, and will look back on this day as the greatest day of his career. Therefore, we may congratulate him, while at the same time expressing our sympathy with the future electricity consumers of London.

Question put. "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 97; Notes, 219.

Betterton, Henry B.
Golf, Sir Park
Peto, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)
Gower, Sir Robert
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)


Blundell, F. N.
Grace, John
Phillpson, Mabel


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Grant, J. A.
Pllcher, G.


Bowyer, Captain G. E. W
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Pllditch, Sir Philip


Brass, Captain W.
Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
Pownall, Lieut-Colonel Assheton


Brassey, Sir Leonard
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Preston, William


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Price, Major C. W. M.


Brlggs, J, Harold
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Radford, E. A.


Brocklebank, C E. R.
Hammersley, S. S.
Ralne, W.


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)


Brown, Maj. O.C. (N'th'I'd., Hexham)
Harland, A.
Reid, D. D. (County Down)


Brown, Brig. Gen.H.C.(Berks,Newb'y)
Harrison, G. J. C.
Remnant. Sir James


Burman, J. B.
Hartington, Marquess of
Rice, Sir Frederick


Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)


Calne, Gordon Hall
Haslam, Henry C.
Ropner, Major L.


Campbell, E. T.
Hawke, John Anthony
Ruggles Brise, Major E. A.


Cassels, J. D.
Henderson, Capt. R.R.(Oxf'd, Henley)
Salmon, Major I.


Cauttey, Sir Henry S.
Henderson, Lieut. Col. V. L. (Bootle)
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putnty)


Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Sandeman, A. Stewart


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Henniker-Hughan, Vice-Adm. Sir A.
Sanders, Sir Robert A.


Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Hilton, Cecil
Sanderson, Sir Frank


Charters, Brigadier-General J.
Holbrook, sir Arthur Richard
Savery, S. S.


Christie, J. A.
Holland, Sir Arthur
Shaw, Lt.-Col.A. D. Mel. (Renfrew W)


Churchman, Sir Arthur C.
Homan, C. W. J.
Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)


Clarry, Reginald George
Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)
Sinclair, Col.T.(Queen's Univ.,Belfast)


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Hopkins. J. W. W.
Skelton, A. N.


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Smith, R.W. (Aberd'n It Kinc'dine, C.)


Cooper, A. Duff
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney,N.)
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Cope, Major William
Hume, Sir G. H.
Spender Clay, Colonel H.


Couper, J. B.
Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer
Sprot, Sir Alexander


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Hutchison,G.A.Clark (Mldl'n & P'bl's)
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Craig, Capt. Rt. Hon. C. C. (Antrim)
Illffe, Sir Edward M.
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.


Crooke, J. Smedley (Derltend)
Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)
Strickland, Sir Gerald


Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Jacob, A. E.
Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.


Cunllffe, Joseph Herbert
Jephcott, A. R.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Curtis-Bennett, Sir Henry
Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Curzon, Captain Viscount
Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Davidson, J.(Hertf'd, Hemel Hempst'd)
King, Captain Henry Douglas
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.
Little, Dr. E. Graham
Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell-(Croydon,S.)


Davies, A. V. (Lancaster, Royton)
Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)
Tinne, J. A.


Davies, Sir Thomas (Clrencester)
Loder, J. de V.
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Dawson, Sir Philip
Luce, Major-Gen.Sir Richard Harman
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Dlxey, A. C.
Lumley, L. R.
Waddington, R.


Drewe, C.
Lynn, Sir Robert J.
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Eden, Captain Anthony
Mac Andrew, Charles Glen
Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L.(Kingston-on-Hult)


Edmondson, Major A. J.
McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus
Warrender, Sir Victor


Edwards, John H. (Accrington)
Macintyre, Ian
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)
McLean, Major A.
Watts, Dr. T.


Frskine, James Malcolm Montelth
Macmillan, Captain H.
Wells, S. R.


Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm
Wheler, Major Granville C. H


Falls, Sir Charles F.
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
White, Lieut.-Colonel G. Dairymple


Fielden, E. B.
Margesson, Captain D.
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


Fleming, D. P.
Meyer, Sir Frank
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Ford, P. J.
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Forester-Walker, L.
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut. Col. J. T. C 
Winby, Colonel L. P.


Foster, Sir Harry S.
Murchison, C. K.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Foxcroft, Captain C. T.
Nail, Lieut-Colonel Sir Joseph
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Fraser, Captain Ian
Neville, R. J.
Wise, Sir Fredric


Fremantle, Lt.-Col. Francis E,
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Womersley, W. J.


Gadle, Lieut. Col. Anthony
Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)
Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'ge & Hyde)


Ganzonl, Sir John
Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert
Wood, Sir S. Hill-(High Peak)


Gault, Lieut Col. Andrew Hamilton
Oakley, T.
Wragg, Herbert


Gee, Captain R.
O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham
Oman, Sir Charles William C.



Gilmour, Lt. col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Mr. Dennis Herbert and Mr. Gratraian.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
 That Standing Orders 223 and 243 be suspended, and that the Bill be now read the Third time."—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Mr. SCURR: In the ordinary way, if this were an ordinary Measure, we might be perfectly contented on this side of the House to let the Third Reading go
through without Division, but in view of what has been said throughout the whole course of this and the previous Debates and the recognition which has been made on all sides of the importance of electricity and its future, we feel that we have to make a protest. Every examination in regard to the electricity undertakings of the country shows that where-
ever municipal enterprise is in control we have the cheapest and the most efficient electricity, while on the other hand wherever we have private companies we find that the public interest is sacrificed all the time to dividends. So far as we are concerned, we agree with what has been said by the hon. Member for Moseley (Mr. Hannon), that we have been responsible during the last few years in doing everything we possibly could to stop these Bills from becoming law. We have done that because we consider that we have a responsibility to our constituents, because we feel that this is a gross betrayal of the whole interests of the London people-4110N. MEMBERS: "No ! "]—and because of that betrayal we are making this protest, even at the final stage of the Bill.
We know that we are going to be beaten in the Division Lobby. We know that the serried ranks opposite will come in, as they always will, on behalf of private enterprise, on behalf of dividends, and always against the interests of the public. They are going to he absolutely true, as they always have been, as they always are, to their friends. They are going to look after the interests of their friends. We are here to make our protest, and I make it on behalf of the people of London. The time is coming when hon. Members opposite will not be there in their serried ranks, but when others will be there who will look after the interests, not of shareholders and dividend hunters, but of the people as a whole.

Mr. LANSBURY: I am sorry to have to intervene in this Debate at this stage, but circumstances, over which I had no control, prevented my being here earlier. I wish to join in the protest. I happen to come from a borough which causes a good deal of amusement on the other side of the House, but which in respect to this particular business of electricity holds the field in the whole of the country. Whatever hon. and right hon. Members may have to say about the frenzied finance of Poplar, the frenzied electricity of Poplar is the cheapest and best in the whole country. Our electricity concern pays a minimum rate of wages for skilled people of £4 5s. per week. it gives &£4 a week to unskilled men. We work the best hours of any undertaking in the
country. We give holidays, we give sick pay, and yet we manage, by organisation and a good deal of courage on the part of those who manage the concern, to give the cheapest product in the country. [An HON. MEMBER: "At the cost of the rates! "] No, not at the cost of the rates. [An HON. MEMBER: "What about the courage of the ratepayers? "] Their courage is that they return us to the extent of 43 members out of 49. The courage of our workpeople is such that they give us 100 per cent., and that courage is shown because we give them the advantage of a cheap, clean, wholesome life, which the private gas companies never permitted us to have.

BrigadierGeneralSirHENRYCROFT: What about your high rates?

Mr. LANSBURY: Our high rates have nothing whatever to do with the electricity undertaking. That undertaking pays its own way. It produces the cheapest electricity, and it makes a profit. I am ashamed to say we make a profit, but we do. We are so efficient that we are obliged to make a profit. I was not here in time to listen to the speech of the hon. Member for the Moseley Division of Birmingham (Mr. Hannon) I always enjoy listening to him. I cannot understand why he represents a Birmingham constituency, holding the extraordinary views on municipal affairs that The does. I learned nearly all I know in regard to gas, water and electricity Socialism from Birmingham, from the late Mr. Joseph Chamberlain, whom we first heard of in London as the apostle of municipal Socialism. I think that it shows a very decadent public opinion in Birmingham to send a representative like the hon. Member, for why a Member from Birmingham should be against municipalisation I cannot understand, because they not only run tramways, but they actually run omnibuses and banks. There is no end to their municipal undertakings.

Mr. HANNON: They are run by the successful business men who made their success in private enterprise.

Mr. LANSBURY: That is exactly the argument which we always put forward. If the hon. Gentleman will only speak for another minute or two he will make my whole case. We have always said that the municipalities and the State
can buy brains as well as corporations and companies and all the various concerns that co buy them. For exactly the same reason that Birmingham manages its municipal concerns, Poplar manages is municipal concerns[Laughter]I am very pleased to hear the hilarity of hon. Gentlemen at this time of night. They cannot get over the statement published, not by ourselves, but by the Board of Trade that Poplar has shown them how to pay high wages, enable men to work under decent conditions and at the same time produce electricity more cheaply than anyone else and make a profit on it. Hon. Members cannot answer that. No amount of jeering will get over facts. With regard to Birmingham, you are in the same position as we are in in regard to omnibuses, trams and the hundred and one other undertakings.
Everyone knows that the gas companies treated the public abominably. We adopted electricity in Poplar because the gas companies would not light our streets. We were driven to it. It was done originally not by Socialists, but by gentlemen holding the view of hon. end right hon. Gentlemen opposite. The fact is that when you are up against it you are obliged to fall back on the community. There is not a single communal service which you had not to take out of the hands of private enterprise. With regard to these Bills it is an iniquity on the part of the London County Council, dominated by your friends, to allow without protest this business to be handed over in the fashion in which it has been handed over. The people down at Poplar, and the poor people in all the other districts, will never get the advantage of electricity from a company. I could not get gas when I started my married life[Laughter.]That statement seems to have evoked an explosion of laughter. in my early married days we could not get gas-light into the house, because the gas companies would not put the mains down the streets in which poor people, lived. The same thing applies to-day to electricity, in those districts where the municipality does not own the generating plant.
You laugh at Poplar's "frenzied finance." Out of the profits that we are making in Poplar from our electricity undertaking, and out of the organisation
of unemployed labour, the cables for conveying electricity are now down every poor street in the borough, and within a few months there will not be a house that will not have been wired by the borough, and every poor person, even those who live in single rooms, will have the blessing of electric light. The mains and wiring will be paid for out of the profits that would otherwise go to private electricity companies. We are able to do that because we use the profits for the service of the people instead of for the dividend hunters of the West End of London. That is the principle for which we have been contending. It is not something in the air; it is something that is happening now. It has not cost the people of Poplar a single penny. The result will be that for cooking, lighting and heating our people will have what rich people only have had in many districts, and that is the blessing of electric power. Hon. Members opposite forget another thing, and that is that from the point of view of public health this is one of the greatest blessings that poor people can have. The landlords certainly in the East End and in overcrowded districts, spend very little money in cleansing the houses.

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is travelling a very long way from the Bill. I do not think that the Bill deals with Poplar.

Mr. LANSBURY: I was trying to give the example of Poplar to prove why other people should have the blessings enjoyed by Poplar. Where private companies own the electricity poor people have precious little chance of getting it. When poor people live in crowded areas the landlords do not spend much money in cleansing the rooms, and because the people have to use lamps and gas the rooms get dirty much more quickly than when electricity is used. I do not want anyone to think that I am posing as a person who has endured poverty. I never have, but I happen to have lived during a period when gas and paraffin lamps, and so on, were used by people who earned the sort of wage or salary that I earned. When electric light is introduced into a house none but those who have gone through the experience of other times can realise what a tremendous blessing electricity is. It is because I know that private companies never have
given and never will give this boon to poor people that I protest against these Bills being allowed to pass to-night.

Question put,

" That Standing Orders 223 and 243 be suspended, and that the Bill be now read the Third time."

The House divided: Ayes, 251; Noes, 100.

Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)
Wise, Sir Fredric


Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)
Watts, Dr. T.
Womersley, W. J.


Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell (Croydon,S.)
Wells, S. R
Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'ge & Hyde)


Tinne, J. A.
Wheler, Major Granville C. H.
Wood, Sir S. Hill (High Peak)


Titchfield. Major the Marquess of
White, Lieut. Cotonel G. Dalrymple
Wragg, Herbert


Waddington, R.
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Wallace, Captain D. E.
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)



Ward, Lt. Col. A. L.(Kingston on Hull)
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Warner, Brigadier General W. W.
Winby, Colonel L. P.
Colonel Vaughan Morgan and Mr


Warrender, Sir Victor
Windsor Clive, Lieut. Colonel George
Hannon


Waterhouse, Captain Charles
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl





NOES


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Harris, Percy A.
Robertson, J. (Lanark, Bothwell)


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Hastings, Sir Patrick
Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W. R., Elland)


Attlee, Clement Richard
Hayday, Arthur
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Hayes, John Henry
Scurr, John


Barr, J
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Batey, Joseph
Hirst, G. H.
Sitch, Charles H.


Beckett, John (Gateshead)
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Smillie, Robert


Broad, F. A.
Hore-Bellsha, Leslie
Smith Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherbithe)


Bromley, J.
Hudson, J. H.
Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)


Brown, James {Ayr and Bute)
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Smith, Rennie (Penlstone)


Charleton, H. C.
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Snell, Harry


Cluse, W. S.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Stamford, T. W.


Compton, Joseph
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Sutton, J. E.


Connolly, M.
Kelly, W. T.
Taylor, R. A.


Davios, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Kennedy, T.
Thurtle, E.


Day, Colonel Harry
Lansbury, George
Tinker, John Joseph


Dennison, R.
Lee, F.
Viant, S. P.


Duncan, C.
Lowth, T.
Wallhead, Richard C.


Edwards, John H. (Accrington)
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)
Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen


Forrest, W.
Mackinder, W.
Warne, G. H.


Garro Jones, Captain G. M.
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermilne)


Glbbins, Joseph
March, S
Watts Morgan, Lt. Col. D. (Rhondda)


Gillett, George M.
Montague, Frederick
Whiteley, W.


Gosling, Harry
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Wignall, James


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Murnin, H.
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Greenall, T.
Oliver, George Harold
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Palln, John Henry
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Paling, W.
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Groves, T.
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Grundy, T. W.
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Windsor, Walter


Guest, Dr. L. Haden (Southwark, N.)
Potts, John S.
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)



Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Rlley, Ben
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Hardle, George D.
Ritson, J.
Mr. A. Barnes and Mr. Dalton

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed, with Amendments

LONDON ELECTRICITY SUPPLY

(No. 1) BILL[Lords] (by Order)As amended, considered

NEW CLAUSE.—(Foy'protection of Metropolitan Borough of Stepney.)

(1) Nothing in the Section of this Act of which the marginal note is "As to use of electricity supplied to certain bodies "shall be deemed to allow electricity supplied by any of the London companies to the Port of London Authority to be used (save so far as may leave been authorised before the passing of this Act, or may hereafter be authorised by Parliament or other competent authority) within any dock or part of a dock in the Metropolitan Borough of Stepney without the consent of the mayor, aldermen, and councillors of the said metropolitan borough under their common seal, except for the purposes of haulage or traction on, or lighting vehicles drawn or propelled by such haulage or traction on,
a railway owned or worked by the Port of London Authority and for the purposes of signalling on any such railway on which electricity so supplied is need for haulage or traction or of working any appliances at passenger stations on any such railway.

(2) Nothing in this Section shall affect the giving of supplies to vehicles not run on rails or the use of any supply given to them.

(3) For the purposes of Section six of the Electric Lighting Act, 1909, nothing in this Section shall be construed as a specific prohibition within the meaning of Sub section (4) of the said Section six against the supply by any of the London companies of electricity within the said metropolitan borough or any part thereof.—[Mr Attlee.]

Brought up, and read the First time

Mr. ATTLEE: Ibeg to move, "That the Clause he read a Second time."

Mr. GROVES: I beg to second the Motion.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

CLAUSE 4.—(Transfer of undertakings of London companies to joint authority.)

Amendment made: In page 9, line 3, leave out the first word "of."—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

CLAUSE 13.—(As to user of electricity on railways, etc.

Amendment made:

In page 16, line 21, at the end, insert the words:

" (9) Provided also that nothing in this Section shall authorise electricity to be used for haulage or traction on any railway unless the company body or person owning or working such railway is authorised by Ant of Parliament or by an Order confirmed by or having effect of an Act of Parliament to use electricity for those purposes."—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

CLAUSE 16.—(For protection of Croydon Corporation.)

Amendment made: In page 17, line 22, leave out the words "to the company."—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

CLAUSE 19.—(For protection of East Ham Corporation.)

Amendment made: In page 19, line 17, leave out the first word "or," and insert instead thereof the word "nor."—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

THIRD SCHEDULE

Amendments made:

In page n,", line 15, leave out the first word "of," and insert instead thereof the words "for the "; leave out the word "adjustment" and insert instead thereof the word "adjustments."

In page 30, line 10, leave out the first word "of."

In line 23, after the word "all," insert the word "of."

In page 31, line 25, leave out the word "on," and insert instead thereof the word "of."

In page 33, line 14, leave out the word "costs," and insert instead thereof the word "cost."

In line 35, after the word "identification," insert the words "of such."

In page 39, line 10, leave out the words "day of."

In line 20, leave out the second word "the."

In line 29, leave out the word "on," and insert instead thereof the word of.

In page 40, line 44, after the first word "the," insert the word "foregoing."

In page 41, line 16, leave out the word "and," and insert instead thereof the words" and/ or."—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Ordered,
That Standing Orders 223 and 243 be suspended, and that the Bill be now read the Third time."—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed, with Amendments

SUPPLY.

Again considered in Committee.

CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS ESTIMATES, 1925–26

CLASS VII.

MINISTRY OF LABOUR

Postponed Proceeding resumed on Question,
 That a sum, not exceeding £8,359,209, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1926, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Ministry of Labour and Subordinate Departments, including the Contributions to the Unemployment Fund, and Payments to Associations, Local Education Authorities, and others for administration under the Unemployment Insurance and Labour Exchanges Acts; Expenditure in connection with the Training of Demobilised Officers. Non-Commissioned Officers and Men, and Nurses; Grants for Resettlement in Civil Life; and the Expenses of the Industrial Court; also expenses in connection with the International Labour Organisation (League of Nations), including a Grant-in-Aid.

Question again proposed.

It being after Eleven of the Clock, and objection being taken to further Proceeding, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.

Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

REGISTRATION OF UNDERTAKERS BILL.

Order for Second Reading read, and discharged; Bill withdrawn

PROTECTION OF ANIMALS BILL.

Read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee

ROMAN CATHOLIC RELIEF BILL.

Order for Second Reading read, and discharged; Bill withdrawn

SEEDS ACT (1920) AMENDMENT BILL.

Bill read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee.

STATUTORY GAS COMPANIES (ELECTRICITY SUPPLY POWERS) BILL.

Not amended(in the Standing Committee)considered; read the Third time, and passed.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed

ADJOITRNMENT

Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Commander Eyres Monsell.]

Adjourned at Eight Minutes after Eleven o'Clock.